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

[bilby]

I agree that enforcing gender roles is regressive. I am not talking about enforcing gender roles, I am talking about people who live as men and women in their societies and whether that is, or must be, strictly tied to their sex organs.

This is the core of the issue. Let's make this very straightforward: Do you believe that prisons should be:

1. Completely shared, with everyone mixed together sharing cells and showers and other spaces
2. Separated based on biological sex
3. Separated based on a person's professed gender identity

4. Controlled spaces in which prisoners are not at liberty to harm others - including other prisoners.

Elaborate on this. Do you mean that all prisoners are placed in solitary? Or that someone is evaluating who is likely to harm others when they're deciding which man gets to share a cell with which woman?

Single cells are not the same thing as solitary confinement, unless prisoners are locked down 24/7.

A prison system has a moral duty to protect inmates, for the simple reason that it necessarily denies them the ability to protect themselves.

No US prison even attempts to live up to that standard; Prisons in the US (and in most of the rest of the world too) are hideous places devised by religious nutters in the 18th and 19th centuries, with little or no thought given to whether they are fit for purpose - or even to what their purpose is, or ought to be - since.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And again, go back to first principles.

What is the justification for separate male and female sports?

Originally? It was because women were forbidden to play sports at all. Women that had the audacity to want to play in a sport were villainized, taunted, scorned. Today, women are allowed to play sports, though some people still mock them, like some men who mocked the US Women's National Soccer Team or Danica Patrick (who ironically is a Trump supporter).

Women's sport were segregated to keep them away from the men or in a desperate attempt to hold onto being able to play an organized event at all. Now days, it is more of a gender gap thing, baseline wise, as far as physical abilities as well as how females are provided much less support as children in sports than males. But there is also this odd mistake made by some to think females are inferior to males in sports. Most top quality female athletes can rip the average male in whatever sport. The females can't stand up, usually, to excelling males in said sports.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I agree that enforcing gender roles is regressive. I am not talking about enforcing gender roles, I am talking about people who live as men and women in their societies and whether that is, or must be, strictly tied to their sex organs.

This is the core of the issue. Let's make this very straightforward: Do you believe that prisons should be:

1. Completely shared, with everyone mixed together sharing cells and showers and other spaces
2. Separated based on biological sex
3. Separated based on a person's professed gender identity

4. Generally a biological sex separated facility run by professionals who can make adult decisions and take input and make reasonable/professional judgments, where hearsay isn't enough for overall policies.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

or to decide for them which aspect of their identity is real and which isn't, to claim you know more about their perthos than they themselves do.

Pretty funny a supposed atheist who rejects religion will indulge exotic mumbo jumbo because it suits their dumb narrative.

Arthur Koestler said philosophy is the systematic abuse of a terminology specially invented for that purpose. He might as well have been talking about gender ideology.

Transgender people have existed for a long time. So we know that gender ideology is complicated. I'm sorry it isn't simply a binary biological thing. The Y chromosome has a very strong influence on things, but we know that it isn't the only factor in gender.

 

[seanie]

Semenya's sex is male. But whether the presence of testicles makes it impossible for someone to be a woman - not a female but a woman - is something else.

No, it isn’t.

If your sex sex is male, and you’re an adult human, you’re a man.
...

^^^ That's not my quote.

Yes, seanie messed up the attribution -- the quote is from Arctish.

Apologies.

 

[seanie]

And again, go back to first principles.

What is the justification for separate male and female sports?

Originally? It was because women were forbidden to play sports at all. Women that had the audacity to want to play in a sport were villainized, taunted, scorned. Today, women are allowed to play sports, though some people still mock them, like some men who mocked the US Women's National Soccer Team or Danica Patrick (who ironically is a Trump supporter).

Women's sport were segregated to keep them away from the men or in a desperate attempt to hold onto being able to play an organized event at all. Now days, it is more of a gender gap thing, baseline wise, as far as physical abilities as well as how females are provided much less support as children in sports than males. But there is also this odd mistake made by some to think females are inferior to males in sports. Most top quality female athletes can rip the average male in whatever sport. The females can't stand up, usually, to excelling males in said sports.

So you’re saying we shouldn’t have separate male and female sports categories at all, despite the obvious physiological advantage males have in most sports.

Women’s world records are routinely beaten by the best 15 year old boys.

Were you unaware of this?

 

[seanie]

The performance gap varies, but males have a huge advantage in most sports.

Have you ever watched the 4x400 mixed relay?

 

[Bomb#20]

or to decide for them which aspect of their identity is real and which isn't, to claim you know more about their perthos than they themselves do.

Pretty funny a supposed atheist who rejects religion will indulge exotic mumbo jumbo because it suits their dumb narrative.

Arthur Koestler said philosophy is the systematic abuse of a terminology specially invented for that purpose. He might as well have been talking about gender ideology.

There is nothing exotic or mumbo-jumbo about neurobiology or the scientific study of cognition and the sense of self.

Your inability to understand my point might be due to my inability to explain it in terms you understand, or it might be due to your inability to understand it at all.

Either way, it feels like I'm trying to explain static electricity to a cat.

Nobody in neurobiology or the scientific study of cognition and the sense of self coined "perthos", or forced you to make up that exotic word, or gave you a reason to falsely accuse seanie of claiming he knows more about anyone's "perthos" than they themselves do. Seanie didn't say a bloody thing about "perthos". The researchers you're trying to hide behind aren't responsible for your mumbo jumbo. You want to use them as support, quote them.

or to decide for them which aspect of their identity is real and which isn't, to claim you know more about their perthos than they themselves do.

Pretty funny a supposed atheist who rejects religion will indulge exotic mumbo jumbo because it suits their dumb narrative.

Arthur Koestler said philosophy is the systematic abuse of a terminology specially invented for that purpose. He might as well have been talking about gender ideology.

Transgender people have existed for a long time. So we know that gender ideology is complicated. I'm sorry it isn't simply a binary biological thing. The Y chromosome has a very strong influence on things, but we know that it isn't the only factor in gender.

Yes, yes, we understand, everyone who isn't on board with gender ideology just can't tell karyotype from gender, exactly like everyone who isn't on board with Christianity is just mad at God. We're all of us all too familiar with that style of ad hominem rhetoric. So any time you get tired of it and are up for an actual conversation, if you sincerely think Arctish isn't indulging exotic mumbo jumbo, feel free to explain in your own words what "perthos" means.

 

[Arctish]

or to decide for them which aspect of their identity is real and which isn't, to claim you know more about their perthos than they themselves do.

Pretty funny a supposed atheist who rejects religion will indulge exotic mumbo jumbo because it suits their dumb narrative.

Arthur Koestler said philosophy is the systematic abuse of a terminology specially invented for that purpose. He might as well have been talking about gender ideology.

There is nothing exotic or mumbo-jumbo about neurobiology or the scientific study of cognition and the sense of self.

Your inability to understand my point might be due to my inability to explain it in terms you understand, or it might be due to your inability to understand it at all.

Either way, it feels like I'm trying to explain static electricity to a cat.

Nobody in neurobiology or the scientific study of cognition and the sense of self coined "perthos",

I know.

I coined it.

I made it up.

You think you need to tell me that I made it up? You don't.

I already know I made it up.

or forced you to make up that exotic word,

True.

I did it willingly, of my own volition, in an attempt to keep sex, gender, and gender identity separate in this conversation. You know, like you told me they are after I already said they are.

or gave you a reason to falsely accuse seanie of claiming he knows more about anyone's "perthos" than they themselves do.

I asked what made him more of an authority on a person's gender identity than the person themselves. I also asked you.

Still waiting for your answer.

Seanie didn't say a bloody thing about "perthos".

Of course he didn't. He hasn't yet responded to the post where I suggested using it.

Maybe he doesn't want to use it. Maybe he wants to use another term. Maybe he wants gender identity to be the same thing as gender and gender to be determined by sex, so he just wants to talk about sex and ignore gender altogether.

The researchers you're trying to hide behind aren't responsible for your mumbo jumbo. You want to use them as support, quote them.

If you want to understand what I'm trying to discuss, follow the links and read the articles, and please, please pay attention to things like me having already said what you're telling me as though you think I don't know it.

or to decide for them which aspect of their identity is real and which isn't, to claim you know more about their perthos than they themselves do.

Pretty funny a supposed atheist who rejects religion will indulge exotic mumbo jumbo because it suits their dumb narrative.

Arthur Koestler said philosophy is the systematic abuse of a terminology specially invented for that purpose. He might as well have been talking about gender ideology.

Transgender people have existed for a long time. So we know that gender ideology is complicated. I'm sorry it isn't simply a binary biological thing. The Y chromosome has a very strong influence on things, but we know that it isn't the only factor in gender.

Yes, yes, we understand, everyone who isn't on board with gender ideology just can't tell karyotype from gender, exactly like everyone who isn't on board with Christianity is just mad at God. We're all of us all too familiar with that style of ad hominem rhetoric. So any time you get tired of it and are up for an actual conversation, if you sincerely think Arctish isn't indulging exotic mumbo jumbo, feel free to explain in your own words what "perthos" means.

It's a portmanteau of "person" and "ethos" to indicate the beliefs, values, character, and identity of a person as it relates to their perception of self within and in relation to their society and its customs, as I said when I suggested using it instead of the term "gender identity".

You know, to keep it separate from the terms "gender" and "sex".

Because sex, gender, and gender identity are three separate things.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

What evidence is there that Semenya's gender is female?

Semenya's statements.

Sex is not the same thing as gender. In the past the terms were used as synonyms but even so, a sex role wasn't ever confused with a gender role during my mid-1950s to early-1970s childhood.

So your argument is what, that gender is the same thing as gender identity because it's a different thing from sex?!?

No.
... no.
No to the Nth degree.

Good. So since you understand that gender isn't the same thing as gender identity, why are you offering Semenya's statements as evidence of gender, when all they're evidence of is gender identity? And why are you telling me sex isn't gender as though that somehow justified your opinion that Semenya's statements are evidence of gender?

That's a false dilemma fallacy. Sex, gender, and gender identity are three different things.

Indeed.

That's why we don't use just one word for sex, gender, and gender identity.

Indeed; and more to the point, that's why we don't use just two words for sex, gender, and gender identity.

That's why it's important to be very clear when we are talking about one of those things to distinguish it from the others. And why it's important to pay attention to qualifiers, conjugations, tenses, gerunds, participles, and other fine details in other people's posts. ...

Quite so. I've been doing that. You've been committing equivocation fallacies up the wazoo.

That's why I proposed we use the term perthos to distinguish gender identity from gender. . But I don't have any hope for this conversation. We are not communicating well and it's really frustrating.

I don't think adding a fourth term will lessen the confusion when you already have such problems with three; and I couldn't make head or tails of your definition of "perthos":

I propose, for the purposes of this discussion, using the term perthos instead of gender. It's a portmanteau of "person" and "ethos" to indicate the beliefs, values, character, and identity of a person as it relates to their perception of self within and in relation to their society and its customs.​

That doesn't on its face have anything to do with the man/woman distinction -- by that definition perthos could equally apply to whether a person identifies as a patriot or an evangelical or a nonconformist or what have you. And to whatever extent you apply it to man-vs-woman, it makes it sound like you want two terms for gender identity and no term at all for gender. That doesn't work for me, so no, I won't use it instead of gender. Gender is the topic of our dispute and I'm not going to help you commit yet more equivocation fallacies.

Sex not being the same thing as gender doesn't magically make Semenya's statements authoritative.

Who is more authoritative on Semenya's gender identity, their perthos, than Semenya?

How do you propose to assess the validity of anyone's gender identity?

See, this is exactly what I'm on about. Where the bejesus do you think you saw me say Semenya isn't "authoritative on Semenya's gender identity"?!? Where the bejesus do you think you saw me call into question "the validity of anyone's gender identity"?!? It's like you completely forgot what we were arguing about two seconds after you quoted it back to me! "Her gender is female.", you wrote. "What evidence is there that Semenya's gender is female?", I wrote. "Gender", not "gender identity"! And then when you challenge me you change "gender" to "gender identity" as though the difference just doesn't matter! As you said, "it's important to be very clear when we are talking about one of those things to distinguish it from the others". You haven't been doing that. You need to start doing that. You think you're frustrated? Try being on the receiving end of your switcheroos!

Are you simply using sex as the determinant, that sex = gender therefore the "correct" gender identity for any individual is the one that matches their sex regardless of their own assessment?

No. Hell no. No to the Nth degree.

I am simply using gender as the determinant, that gender = gender therefore the "correct" gender for any individual is the one that matches their gender regardless of their own assessment. I'm being very clear which I mean. I keep saying "gender" because I mean gender, not sex and not gender identity. You keep coming up with fanciful guesses like that one for what I mean, because you refuse to take me literally, because you keep mixing up those terms' meanings.

Research into gender identification of people with DSDs, and the neurobiology of gender indicate that gender is linked to sex, culture, and how a child was raised, but not so strongly that we can predict what a child's gender will be.

Your links do not back up the outlandish claim you make about them. Why did you label your second link "neurobiology of gender"? The article title is "Neurobiology of gender identity and sexual orientation". The experts you cite keep saying "gender identity" and yet you keep misrepresenting their conclusions as being about gender.

It was a possibility that Semenya could have developed the gender identity of 'man' despite being raised as a girl. She didn't, though. She developed the gender identity of 'woman'. It is difficult to differentiate that from being 'female' (which she isn't) in the English language, although it would be easy in some other languages spoken here in the United States.

It's not hard to differentiate them in English at all. Semenya is male but thinks he's a woman because he was raised as a girl. It's a simple matter of paying attention to which statements are about matters of fact and which are about someone's belief. English can handle that as easily as it can handle "The Dalai Lama isn't reincarnated, but thinks he is because he was raised to believe it."

Whether you accept someone's word about their gender is your business.

It's the same as accepting someone's word about anything else -- it depends on if one thinks the person has a reason to lie or a reason to be mistaken, and on whether one has any conflicting information throwing the claim into doubt. Getting consistently treated as a girl in childhood gave Semenya every reason to be mistaken, and being a guevedoce, having male testosterone levels, flunking an IAAF sex verification test, and fathering two daughters are all conflicting information.

You are assuming Semenya is mistaken about her gender because the adults around her were mistaken about her sex and raised her wrong.

"Raised her wrong"? I haven't offered an opinion about what's the right way to raise a guevedoce. I certainly don't blame anyone for raising Semenya as a girl given that South Africa isn't the Dominican Republic and the adults had no reason to be aware guevedoces even exist.

Also, you are arguing gender is a social construct, not an aspect of self awareness and self identity,

Well yeah -- just go look up the word. You know it's a social construct and not an aspect of self awareness and self identity -- I said "Sex, gender, and gender identity are three different things.", and you said "Indeed. That's why we don't use just one word for sex, gender, and gender identity." So your incessant conflation of the social construct with the aspect of self awareness and self identity just looks like carelessness.

so people don't get to tell society what their gender is, society tells them.

Of course people get to tell society what their gender is, just as society gets to tell them -- it's a free country. But society doesn't have to believe them, any more than they have to believe society -- it's a free country. All people get to judge for themselves.

What I'm arguing is that since gender is a social construct, not an aspect of self awareness and self identity, society and not the individual is the expert witness. When a person disagrees with society as to the person's gender, society is probably right. Society knows its own social constructs best, just as a person knows his own self awareness best.

What I find most interesting about that is the current social trend of recognizing and respecting variations in sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identities and presentations (including non-binary) is rendering the old system of gender designation obsolete.

You're conflating gender issues with sexual orientation now. The current social trend of telling lesbians they're bigots and fetishists if they don't do dick and like their female-only spaces does not qualify as recognizing and respecting variations in sexual orientation.

As far as gender goes, by "the current social trend", you appear to be referring to a new social construct that's become prevalent within a narrow ideological subculture. To the extent that you think pronouns following gender identity rather than sex is true in the wider culture because it's true in a left-wing echo chamber, that's wishful thinking. To the extent that you know it isn't true in the wider culture, but intend to make it become true by claiming it already is true, bullying dissidents into submitting, and counting on the dissidents all shutting up until they all die of old age, that's pious fraud.

Some people are having a difficult time adjusting to that.

You mean, a difficult time adjusting to speaking Progressivese instead of English? You nouveau-aristocrats actually need to win your meme war before there can be anything for us commoners to adjust to.

In 300 AD the Roman Empire had been safe place for atheists for hundreds of years; Christianity was a minor sect. In 400 AD Christianity was dominant and the empire was becoming dangerous for atheists. It made sense for Christians to talk about pagans having a difficult time adjusting, in 400 AD. In 300 AD, not so much.

 

[Bomb#20]

or to decide for them which aspect of their identity is real and which isn't, to claim you know more about their perthos than they themselves do.

Pretty funny a supposed atheist who rejects religion will indulge exotic mumbo jumbo because it suits their dumb narrative.

Arthur Koestler said philosophy is the systematic abuse of a terminology specially invented for that purpose. He might as well have been talking about gender ideology.

There is nothing exotic or mumbo-jumbo about neurobiology or the scientific study of cognition and the sense of self.

Your inability to understand my point might be due to my inability to explain it in terms you understand, or it might be due to your inability to understand it at all.

Either way, it feels like I'm trying to explain static electricity to a cat.

Nobody in neurobiology or the scientific study of cognition and the sense of self coined "perthos",

I know.

I coined it.

I made it up.

You think you need to tell me that I made it up? You don't.

I already know I made it up.

Of course you do. I belabored the point in order to drive home how ridiculous you were being to paint seanie and me as claiming the conclusions of neurobiology are exotic mumbo jumbo, when it was painfully obvious that we were calling your made-up term "perthos" exotic mumbo jumbo. You were strawmanning us. Don't do that.

or gave you a reason to falsely accuse seanie of claiming he knows more about anyone's "perthos" than they themselves do.

I asked what made him more of an authority on a person's gender identity than the person themselves.

You said "perthos". But you're characterizing yourself as asking him about gender identity. So evidently you equate "perthos" with gender identity. But when you coined it you said we should use it in place of gender. That's an equivocation fallacy.

Transgender people have existed for a long time. So we know that gender ideology is complicated. I'm sorry it isn't simply a binary biological thing. The Y chromosome has a very strong influence on things, but we know that it isn't the only factor in gender.

Yes, yes, we understand, everyone who isn't on board with gender ideology just can't tell karyotype from gender, exactly like everyone who isn't on board with Christianity is just mad at God. We're all of us all too familiar with that style of ad hominem rhetoric. So any time you get tired of it and are up for an actual conversation, if you sincerely think Arctish isn't indulging exotic mumbo jumbo, feel free to explain in your own words what "perthos" means.

It's a portmanteau of "person" and "ethos" to indicate the beliefs, values, character, and identity of a person as it relates to their perception of self within and in relation to their society and its customs, as I said when I suggested using it instead of the term "gender identity".

You know, to keep it separate from the terms "gender" and "sex".

Because sex, gender, and gender identity are three separate things.

You and Jimmy Higgins are two separate things. I didn't ask you to explain it in your words. I already had your words.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And again, go back to first principles.

What is the justification for separate male and female sports?

Originally? It was because women were forbidden to play sports at all. Women that had the audacity to want to play in a sport were villainized, taunted, scorned. Today, women are allowed to play sports, though some people still mock them, like some men who mocked the US Women's National Soccer Team or Danica Patrick (who ironically is a Trump supporter).

Women's sport were segregated to keep them away from the men or in a desperate attempt to hold onto being able to play an organized event at all. Now days, it is more of a gender gap thing, baseline wise, as far as physical abilities as well as how females are provided much less support as children in sports than males. But there is also this odd mistake made by some to think females are inferior to males in sports. Most top quality female athletes can rip the average male in whatever sport. The females can't stand up, usually, to excelling males in said sports.

So you’re saying we shouldn’t have separate male and female sports categories at all, despite the obvious physiological advantage males have in most sports.

Dude, you need a refund from your grade school.

Women’s world records are routinely beaten by the best 15 year old boys.

I'll bite at this. Which women's world records are routinely beaten by 15 year old boys?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is no way for a girl or woman to be able to accurately assess that situation in the case of an unknown naked person in a shower in a woman’s only space.

Assuming someone is safe is how a lot of girls and women end up being raped by family members, coaches, teachers, medical professionals, friends and intimate partners.

In none of the instances when I was assaulted did I think the other person meant me harm. Until it was obvious that they did.

Which does not support your point at all.

You are totally focused on whether there is any risk--and that is never the right metric.

I am saying to measure the relative risk. How much is your risk increased by allowing MTFs in the women's room? And what's the risk of the reverse--requiring the FTMs to use the women's makes it easier for a male to slip into the women's. Compare those. Also, count the risk to the people in the bathroom that doesn't match their presentation. The risk to the latter group is unquestioned. All the evidence for rapes by MTFs in the women's appears dodgy. But we do have a clear case of the MTF being raped.

I'm looking for the answer that minimizes the number of rapes and other violence. But you do not appear to care about the risk to the outgroup, only that no perception of risk occurs to your ingroup.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

And they can differniate this in the moment how?

It's a women's--how are they even seeing genitals in most cases?

I would also add that lewdly flailing genitals at someone is a sex crime. Women shouldn't be beholden to a statutory lower limit of rape.

Caution here, you're mixing things up. Yes, lewdly flailing genitals at someone is a sex crime and I have absolutely no problem with prosecuting it--including in cases where said genitals are not quite exposed. (Look at some of the reaction video garbage, doesn't matter if you're wearing a bikini, it's still flashing in my book.) It's not rape, though.

Ultimately any crime that a faux transgender person could commit is likely to be uncommon based on simple statistics. Is this the boundary to use and tell women that their thoughts on this matter are irrelevant?

I think the statistics mean more than the thoughts. By listening to thoughts you encode the bogeyman into law.

Almost no school in the US will have a gun massacre, but all schools still practice massacre drills. Sex crimes are about the worst crimes that are committed. That and double parking on Broadway.

Massacre drills are Republican propaganda and should be forbidden.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you seriously expect us to take your word for it that the British people and the British courts can't figure out for themselves whether they like the consequences of having put gender ideologues in charge of policy unless they can find a cabal of Americans to pull their puppet strings for them? That's really not how the British think. There is no "crusade against the trans" that's having any significant impact on anything; the crusade with traction is the one to subject society at large to the moralistic dictates of the progressive stack. Inevitably there's pushback, not just from conservatives and centrists who always objected to progressivism, but also from feminists who stopped being fans of stack-based rule the minute women got bumped a few notches down the stack. Why the heck would a TERF be the least bit influenced by P2025 nuts? You do know what the RF in TERF stands for, don't you?

The thread title is about England but we are in America, I'm looking at what's happening here.

Have you read what P2025 says about the trans? And does it not occur to you that not everything is straightforward? The Nazis benefit from stirring up the TERFs, why do you think they wouldn't do a false flag operation??

I agree, the perception is muddled in an ugly amount of unfairness to a transgender woman as some the presumptions are based on intolerance of transgender women (mainly by men, but certainly some women). However, there is a lot rooted in personal trauma as well as a natural (and should be expected) innate reaction due to what would have otherwise been lewd behavior at the very best. A reaction / perception that is precipitated by an aggregate of well documented sex crimes (and undocumented sex crimes) against women by men.

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

Methinks the situation you have in mind when you say "the situation" is not the same situation Emily agrees existed for a long time without a problem.

MTFs in the women's. It's been going on for a long time, in some countries for nearly 100 years.

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 please. Nobody is going to be shipped off to the camps for being trans. It's the people speaking out against gender ideology who are getting persecuted by the legal system. Hatred is being stirred up by the left wing with the hateful and insane policies they impose on a largely unwilling public.

Wake up!

We already are at the concentration camp stage. That prison in El Salvador.

And I see little difference between "deport to South Sudan" and "death camp". And I see little difference between Worm Brain's "solution" for psychiatric drugs and Auschwitz.

 

[Toni]

There is no way for a girl or woman to be able to accurately assess that situation in the case of an unknown naked person in a shower in a woman’s only space.

Assuming someone is safe is how a lot of girls and women end up being raped by family members, coaches, teachers, medical professionals, friends and intimate partners.

In none of the instances when I was assaulted did I think the other person meant me harm. Until it was obvious that they did.

Which does not support your point at all.

You are totally focused on whether there is any risk--and that is never the right metric.

I am saying to measure the relative risk. How much is your risk increased by allowing MTFs in the women's room? And what's the risk of the reverse--requiring the FTMs to use the women's makes it easier for a male to slip into the women's. Compare those. Also, count the risk to the people in the bathroom that doesn't match their presentation. The risk to the latter group is unquestioned. All the evidence for rapes by MTFs in the women's appears dodgy. But we do have a clear case of the MTF being raped.

I'm looking for the answer that minimizes the number of rapes and other violence. But you do not appear to care about the risk to the outgroup, only that no perception of risk occurs to your ingroup.

I think there is nearly nil risk in actual assault by MtF persons.

Unfortunately, there is significant risk if the individual is not actually trans but is a malevolent individual who falsely asserts they are trans in order to victimize females.

You apparently do not read my posts very well because I have repeatedly said that NO ONE should feel or be unsafe in female only spaces.

NO ONE should be further traumatized by being confronted by an unfamiliar apparently male body in a female only locker room. Lots of girls and women ( cis and trans) have been sexually assaulted, usually by people they believe they can trust. This kind of assault creates a long lasting trauma that can make victims hyper vigilant—which means they can go into flee or freeze mode—or fight mode.

Again, since you seem not to have noticed before: Trans girls and trans women should NOT be traumatized by frightened cis girls and women who see an apparent male body and react in fear. Which is very likely to happen if unexpected male appearing bodies are in female only space.

In such an instance, both the cis females and the trans females would be traumatized. I don’t want that to happen.

 

[TSwizzle]

Because sex, gender, and gender identity are three separate things.

the holy trinity

To go with your exotic mumbo jumbo.

 

[ZiprHead]

Because sex, gender, and gender identity are three separate things.

the holy trinity

To go with your exotic mumbo jumbo.

It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't. I view pronouns as being externally-applied, based on the observer's perception of the object's sex. That's how they've been used throughout the history of the English language, and I don't see any compelling reason to change that usage. Especially when doing so does not result in better clarity and understanding, but serves instead to generate confusion and mistakes.

I also don't think it's rude to use sex-based pronouns in reference to someone who isn't even present.

I am now up to three sex changes in medical records. Third time's the charm, does that make me a woman?

(And why in the world did you note "normal mammogram" on an image pointed lower down?? I would have been asking some questions about whether the right image was read except that it apparently was some sort of snafu that it was even ordered in the first place.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't give a good goddamn about anybody's gender identity

That sounds like another problem. Everyone has a gender identity. You have a gender identity.

I do not.

This is tantamount to saying that "everyone has a soul" and insisting that atheists must also accept that souls exist even if they don't believe in them. It's the gender identity religion's version of "god believes in you though".

How does that remotely compare with a soul?

"Gender identity" = how do you see yourself.

We currently have no understanding of what bit of reality causes this but there's no doubt it does exist and it does not automatically follow anatomy. Mendel had no idea about DNA but got basic genetics right anyway.