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

[Jarhyn]

I don’t believe any 25 year old belongs in juvenile detention and rapists of all sorts need to be segregated from their preferred victims.

And yet 26 year old "Hannah" Tubbs was placed in a female juvenile detention center because 1) he was 17 when he raped a 10 year old girl in a public bathroom and 2) he said he identified as a woman when he was arrested. So it does happen, and he *did* unquestionably self-identify as a woman. Does he need and deserve acceptance and support for his gender identity?

And "says he identifies as a woman" says nothing about behavior at the time of the rape. See why I have a problem with the data?

Would you like to at least consider altering your general statement, and perhaps place some boundary conditions on what constitutes transgender in the first place, and thus give some clarity to who exactly needs support and acceptance? And perhaps elaborate on what form that support and acceptance is expected to take?

I have no problem with requirements that are practical to comply with. What we had before was quite burdensome.

And it's not like this hasn't been discussed repeatedly.

It has already been discussed that the minimum behavioral and physical changes shouldn't be decided by someone who things being trans means getting your genital organ cut off.

The biology has been explained quite literally a dozen times on these forums alone, I'm guessing around 8 times by me, 2-3 times by Sigma, and at least once or twice by other users. I know a few times it's been explained by biologists and neurologists as linked by still other users as far as the neurology goes, and I've posted a number of strong conjectures about the mechanics of gender and hormones as I understand the psychology and neurology of it.

Loren and I have both directly discussed identification requirements that could be reasonably expected when someone makes an immediate claim, with different standards for bathrooms and prisons.

I don't think we need to look at "gender" or "sex", however, to execute such standards. It's just that some people really have a bug up their asses about wanting to uphold their highschool biology level idea of gender and sex as law.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Since modern people recognize more than 2 genders, your point seems out of place.

My point was that ancient people are not authoritative about modern people or morality or even medical science.

Indeed, using very old documents to solve problems when the documents aren't exactly up to date on things is a bad idea. However, I would venture that we can take some information or observations from them, particularly regarding human behavior. We know non-baseline sexual identity or behavior was common enough that it needed to be raised.

We can also take from these documents, the source of the hatred against non-baseline sexual identity and behavior as well. And there is a lot of hate out there.

You have no problem “dismissing the feelings and right” of the transgender community. Is it simply a matter of numbers to you?

I have never done any such thing.
But I understand that your ideology requires you to believe that anyone who disagrees with you about anything, with nuance, must be wrong.

When dealing with Autism, one of the things that people must accept is how the person with autism experiences the world, from sight, sound, taste, feel, etc... One must understand this is how this person is actually experiencing things. It isn't choice, it isn't typical, but it is real to them.

The position on transgenders in this thread varies quite a bit among those on the anti-women's private spaces side. Making it difficult to actually remember the foundation each of these people use for their position. I think this conversation would be more productive, if those who were against transgender women being in private women spaces, acknowledged that a transgender woman who has gone through therapy hasn't made any choice about who they are, other than accepting it. That doesn't necessarily change one's positions, but treating a transgender woman as actually a transgender women, instead of a man, could help extract some much needed empathy that is required to form a desire to address the needs and responsibilities of all parties.

 

[seanie]

Treating trans women as women is fine for many everyday interactions.

It breaks down where a person’s sex is actually relevant.

Single sex spaces are only single sex, if only people of one sex are allowed.

 

[Bomb#20]

Since modern people recognize more than 2 genders, your point seems out of place.

My point was that ancient people are not authoritative about modern people or morality or even medical science.

Indeed, using very old documents to solve problems when the documents aren't exactly up to date on things is a bad idea. However, I would venture that we can take some information or observations from them, particularly regarding human behavior. We know non-baseline sexual identity or behavior was common enough that it needed to be raised.

We can also take from these documents, the source of the hatred against non-baseline sexual identity and behavior as well. And there is a lot of hate out there.

Whatever hatred against non-baseline sexual identity and behavior there is in our society, its source is not very old documents, least of all the Talmud. Very old documents are reflections of cultural attitudes, not their cause. Furthermore, whatever hatred against non-baseline sexual identity and behavior there is in our society, it's not on display in this thread. The source of the unceasing insinuations that thread participants hate trans people is the hatred against uppity infidels endemic to every faith whose believers feel it's entitled to be in charge of society.

When dealing with Autism, one of the things that people must accept is how the person with autism experiences the world, from sight, sound, taste, feel, etc... One must understand this is how this person is actually experiencing things. It isn't choice, it isn't typical, but it is real to them.

The position on transgenders in this thread varies quite a bit among those on the anti-women's private spaces side.

Which side is "the anti-women's private spaces side"? You mean the side against women having private spaces? Or the side against men using women's private spaces?

Making it difficult to actually remember the foundation each of these people use for their position. I think this conversation would be more productive, if those who were against transgender women being in private women spaces, acknowledged that a transgender woman who has gone through therapy hasn't made any choice about who they are, other than accepting it. That doesn't necessarily change one's positions, but treating a transgender woman as actually a transgender women, instead of a man, could help extract some much needed empathy

Hmm. Would you argue that we ought to treat people who think they were abducted by aliens as actually having been abducted by aliens, in order to cultivate empathy in ourselves? Should we also treat people with recovered memories of having been subjected to Satanic ritual abuse by long-ago caregivers as actually having been subjected to Satanic ritual abuse by long-ago caregivers, in order to cultivate empathy in ourselves? How about treating people who think they're following Allah's commands when they stab passersby for being gays or immodest women as actually following Allah's commands, in order to cultivate empathy in ourselves? Delusions come in a spectrum, from completely harmless on one end to horrifically dangerous to third parties on the other; but what the delusions all share is they aren't choices -- they're real to the persons actually experiencing them, and we need empathy for all of them. So is some much needed empathy always sufficient reason to treat people as if their self-perceptions are correct, or is there a point on that spectrum where you draw the line?

that is required to form a desire to address the needs and responsibilities of all parties.

The trouble is, "form a desire to address the needs and responsibilities of all parties" usually seems to get interpreted in these discussions as it only being the responsibility of women to address the needs of men. Men also have a responsibility to address the needs of women. I don't know how to collect statistics, but my impression is that the large majority of non-op transwomen have enough empathy for women to be aware that seeing them as men is how the average woman experiences the world, from sight, sound, etc., and take their responsibilities seriously. So they voluntarily stay out of women's private spaces.

 

[Toni]

Since modern people recognize more than 2 genders, your point seems out of place.

My point was that ancient people are not authoritative about modern people or morality or even medical science.

Indeed, using very old documents to solve problems when the documents aren't exactly up to date on things is a bad idea. However, I would venture that we can take some information or observations from them, particularly regarding human behavior. We know non-baseline sexual identity or behavior was common enough that it needed to be raised.

We can also take from these documents, the source of the hatred against non-baseline sexual identity and behavior as well. And there is a lot of hate out there.

You have no problem “dismissing the feelings and right” of the transgender community. Is it simply a matter of numbers to you?

I have never done any such thing.
But I understand that your ideology requires you to believe that anyone who disagrees with you about anything, with nuance, must be wrong.

When dealing with Autism, one of the things that people must accept is how the person with autism experiences the world, from sight, sound, taste, feel, etc... One must understand this is how this person is actually experiencing things. It isn't choice, it isn't typical, but it is real to them.

The position on transgenders in this thread varies quite a bit among those on the anti-women's private spaces side. Making it difficult to actually remember the foundation each of these people use for their position. I think this conversation would be more productive, if those who were against transgender women being in private women spaces, acknowledged that a transgender woman who has gone through therapy hasn't made any choice about who they are, other than accepting it. That doesn't necessarily change one's positions, but treating a transgender woman as actually a transgender women, instead of a man, could help extract some much needed empathy that is required to form a desire to address the needs and responsibilities of all parties.

In theory, I have no problems with trans women being in women only spaces. In reality, I cannot ignore what so many posting here are happy to ignore: A large number of girls and women have experienced sexual assault and abuse at the hands of men. AFAIK, there is no way to ensure that there are no posers attempting to access victims. And there seem to be no effective ways to simply get over the panic/fear response of victims.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

that is required to form a desire to address the needs and responsibilities of all parties.

The trouble is, "form a desire to address the needs and responsibilities of all parties" usually seems to get interpreted in these discussions as it only being the responsibility of women to address the needs of men. Men also have a responsibility to address the needs of women.

Or maybe... for just a minute... one could consider a male's responsibility to make a transgender woman feel safe in the men's locker room. That would appear to be the EASIEST way to try and address this. Those males who are on their white stallions, protecting the fairer gender seem to be talking more about where the transgender women shouldn't be, instead of where they can be welcomed.

 

[seanie]

Well obviously.

But that would be asking men to change attitudes and make accommodations, instead of women.

Which is why that option has been largely overlooked.

 

[ZiprHead]

Well obviously.

But that would be asking men to change attitudes and make accommodations, instead of women.

Which is why that option has been largely overlooked.

Overlooked by who?

 

[TomC]

In theory, I have no problems with trans women being in women only spaces. In reality, I cannot ignore what so many posting here are happy to ignore: A large number of girls and women have experienced sexual assault and abuse at the hands of men. AFAIK, there is no way to ensure that there are no posers attempting to access victims. And there seem to be no effective ways to simply get over the panic/fear response of victims.

In theory, I have no problems with elimination of sex segregated restrooms completely.

All we need to do is thoroughly socialize males so they don't abuse women. Until then, there will be women who want a male free place for personal business. And they have rights! Whether trans activists will acknowledge their rights or not.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Well obviously.

But that would be asking men to change attitudes and make accommodations, instead of women.

Which is why that option has been largely overlooked.

Overlooked by who?

The trans activists who insist that male women are entitled to use the women's restroom.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Well obviously.

But that would be asking men to change attitudes and make accommodations, instead of women.

Which is why that option has been largely overlooked.

Overlooked by who?

The trans activists who insist that male women are entitled to use the women's restroom.
Tom

It has been noted several times in this thread by the "trans activists" that men attack trans women in restrooms. Do keep up, please.

 

[seanie]

Well obviously.

But that would be asking men to change attitudes and make accommodations, instead of women.

Which is why that option has been largely overlooked.

Overlooked by who?

By trans rights activists in particular, and a large proportion of men in general.

Because women’s rights are not much thought about.

 

[TomC]

Well obviously.

But that would be asking men to change attitudes and make accommodations, instead of women.

Which is why that option has been largely overlooked.

Overlooked by who?

The trans activists who insist that male women are entitled to use the women's restroom.
Tom

It has been noted several times in this thread by the "trans activists" that men attack trans women in restrooms. Do keep up, please.

I'm aware of that.
Males are definitely the more dangerous sex. I don't see giving them entitlements to use women's spaces as a solution to that obvious problem.
Tom

 

[seanie]

I can give an example from the world of sport.

US Rowing.

Not sure if the rules have changed, but until recently trans women could compete in women’s categories, subject to testosterone levels.

But rowing also had mixed sex classifications, and trans women didn’t qualify as eligible women for that.

Why?

What possible rationale was there for allowing trans women to compete against women as women, but not allowing them to compete as women alongside men in the mixed sex classifications?

Because USRowing didn’t really care about fairness in women’s sport, but very much cared about fairness when it involved men.

 

[seanie]

If something negatively affects women,? Oh, it’s fine, just be kind.

Something that might negatively affect men? We have to have a rule in place to stop that.

 

[Toni]

In theory, I have no problems with trans women being in women only spaces. In reality, I cannot ignore what so many posting here are happy to ignore: A large number of girls and women have experienced sexual assault and abuse at the hands of men. AFAIK, there is no way to ensure that there are no posers attempting to access victims. And there seem to be no effective ways to simply get over the panic/fear response of victims.

In theory, I have no problems with elimination of sex segregated restrooms completely.

All we need to do is thoroughly socialize males so they don't abuse women. Until then, there will be women who want a male free place for personal business. And they have rights! Whether trans activists will acknowledge their rights or not.
Tom

My husband ( cis male) is more particular about privacy in showers and toilets than I am. Mentioned here to point out that women are not the only people who prefer privacy.

Yes, we need to do a much better job teaching people about consent and respect so that fewer ( ideally zero) people are abused.

 

[Bomb#20]

that is required to form a desire to address the needs and responsibilities of all parties.

The trouble is, "form a desire to address the needs and responsibilities of all parties" usually seems to get interpreted in these discussions as it only being the responsibility of women to address the needs of men. Men also have a responsibility to address the needs of women.

Or maybe... for just a minute... one could consider a male's responsibility to make a transgender woman feel safe in the men's locker room. That would appear to be the EASIEST way to try and address this. Those males who are on their white stallions, protecting the fairer gender seem to be talking more about where the transgender women shouldn't be, instead of where they can be welcomed.

Hey, I already advocated ripping the "Men" signs down and replacing them with "All Genders", putting everyone on notice that trans people are allowed there. The only responses I recall were that it would mysteriously force us to rip out the urinals, and that it would be unfair to men for women to get to have a single-sex space but men not to. These do not seem to me to be substantive objections.

If you mean men would continue to be unwelcoming to transwomen even when they know they're in a place transwomen are allowed, it's not clear to me how letting men expand our collective testosterone poisoning into all-gender bathrooms formerly called "women's rooms" would keep us from being just as unwelcoming there as we are in all-gender bathrooms formerly called "men's rooms".

 

[Toni]

Well obviously.

But that would be asking men to change attitudes and make accommodations, instead of women.

Which is why that option has been largely overlooked.

Overlooked by who?

Well, whenever I've mentioned that men need to change their behavior and that MEN are the ones who need to stop abusing women, it's met with .....crickets. For the most part.

The fact is that even today, women and girls are blamed for whatever abuse they experience, at whose ever hands, although priests seem to get a fair amount of ire. Oh, wait: that's mostly because boys are considered the prime targets for abuse by priests. It's unfortunate that anyone is subjected to such abuse but boys are not the only ones who are abused by priests. And of course, #NotAllPriests.

 

[Bomb#20]

The trouble is, "form a desire to address the needs and responsibilities of all parties" usually seems to get interpreted in these discussions as it only being the responsibility of women to address the needs of men. Men also have a responsibility to address the needs of women.

Or maybe... for just a minute... one could consider a male's responsibility to make a transgender woman feel safe in the men's locker room. That would appear to be the EASIEST way to try and address this. Those males who are on their white stallions, protecting the fairer gender seem to be talking more about where the transgender women shouldn't be, instead of where they can be welcomed.

Oh, and another thing: what is with this whole "white stallions" business? Are you trans? Assuming you aren't, how do you figure a male prioritizing women's interests above transwomen's interests is an iota more on a white horse than a cisman prioritizing transwomen's interests over women's interests is? I have no interest in white horses. Appaloosas rule!

 

[Jarhyn]

Since modern people recognize more than 2 genders, your point seems out of place.

My point was that ancient people are not authoritative about modern people or morality or even medical science.

Indeed, using very old documents to solve problems when the documents aren't exactly up to date on things is a bad idea. However, I would venture that we can take some information or observations from them, particularly regarding human behavior. We know non-baseline sexual identity or behavior was common enough that it needed to be raised.

We can also take from these documents, the source of the hatred against non-baseline sexual identity and behavior as well. And there is a lot of hate out there.

You have no problem “dismissing the feelings and right” of the transgender community. Is it simply a matter of numbers to you?

I have never done any such thing.
But I understand that your ideology requires you to believe that anyone who disagrees with you about anything, with nuance, must be wrong.

When dealing with Autism, one of the things that people must accept is how the person with autism experiences the world, from sight, sound, taste, feel, etc... One must understand this is how this person is actually experiencing things. It isn't choice, it isn't typical, but it is real to them.

The position on transgenders in this thread varies quite a bit among those on the anti-women's private spaces side. Making it difficult to actually remember the foundation each of these people use for their position. I think this conversation would be more productive, if those who were against transgender women being in private women spaces, acknowledged that a transgender woman who has gone through therapy hasn't made any choice about who they are, other than accepting it. That doesn't necessarily change one's positions, but treating a transgender woman as actually a transgender women, instead of a man, could help extract some much needed empathy that is required to form a desire to address the needs and responsibilities of all parties.

In theory, I have no problems with trans women being in women only spaces. In reality, I cannot ignore what so many posting here are happy to ignore: A large number of girls and women have experienced sexual assault and abuse at the hands of men. AFAIK, there is no way to ensure that there are no posers attempting to access victims. And there seem to be no effective ways to simply get over the panic/fear response of victims.

One of the reasons I don't bring it up is because I already brought it up some years ago...

My suggestion was actually to have an ID card that says "no sperms; testosterone suppressed".

These are substantive changes that a casual "poser" abuser will not make.

For those lacking these measures, make harsh penalties for those violating spaces which are supposed to be free of the risk of sperms or the influence of testosterone.