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

[Emily Lake]

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.

Sure, but those same activists seem completely blind to the fact that women are attacked by men pretty much everywhere, at astronomically higher levels... and that allowing males who profess to be transgender use female spaces simply because they said magic words creates a gigantic loophole visible from space that increases the already high risk to women.

It's super duper important for those activists that male women get protected. On the other hand, those activists seem to not give a single fuck about female women.

 

[Emily Lake]

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!

Fresians. The Fabio of horses.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Unfortunately, the vast majority of activists are quite stridently opposed to "papers please" approaches.

On the other hand, I still have a fundamental disagreement with you on this. Viable sperm isn't what makes a man a man, nor is the presence of high testosterone. A 90 year old man with very low testosterone who is infertile is still a man. A man whose had both testicles removed post cancer is still a man. The lack of sperm shouldn't, in my view, give any man the right to use female spaces.

 

[Emily Lake]

I have a bit of irrational hatred for rapists. I've never been traumatized that way myself, but enough people I know and care about have been to be...

Toss 'em on the pile in the basement of the prison.

I don't think it's irrational at all. I'm generally pretty hard-line non-aggression... but I also don't have any issues with a punitive justice system. I have no principled objection to capital punishment. I might be willing to grant some grace toward reasonable statutory rape offenses, or even some few date rape scenarios. But by and large, I'm inclined to think that rapists and pedophiles deserve the woodchipper.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Autistic people don't experience the world differently. They process their experiences differently. Their perceptions are pretty normal, but their cognitive processes are atypical.

Seriously, are you confusing autism with schizophrenia or psychosis?

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

Those on their white stallions are what I refer to when discussing the hypocrites that supported the contraction of women's reproductive rights, mock women's sports, mock women's rights in general, hated what they called "PC", trashed #MeToo. The absurd Venn Diagram of positions these people have makes their rescue for women rights in the locker room obnoxiously hard to swallow.

These people are a majority of those against trans women in women's locker rooms, and they certainly are the loudest.

I think you're wrong. The majority of people who oppose men with alternate gender identities using female spaces are people who support reproductive rights, support women's rights, oppose violence against women, support #MeToo.

You're making the mistake of thinking that just because hard-line conservatives have picked up a gift that progressives handed them on a silver tray, they were the first ones to oppose it. They're not, and they're late to the fucking party altogether - as are most of the people in this thread.

Feminists started this opposition to males invading female spaces, crossing women's boundaries, and appropriating our words and out experiences over two decades ago. Feminists who are almost entirely on the liberal side of things.

The conservatives and the religious nuts have latched onto it quite recently.

 

[Emily Lake]

And if you support puberty blockers and surgery for minors, as per the gender affirming model, you are supporting the sterilisation and mutilation of children.

Own it.

Reducing complex psychological and medical treatments to slogans is the hallmark of bigotryand propaganda not intelligent analysis.

Ignoring the long term risks, the destruction of future fertility, the inability of children to fully comprehend what they're consenting to, and the extremely mixed results of a highly popular socially driven medical intervention in order to support a different set of slogans is ideologically driven child abuse.

You just proved my point. Gender affirming treatment is best left to responsible medical professionals and their clients not sloganeers.

The medical profession, not state legislators, needs to come up with a set of best practice which includes not just physical medical treatment but intense psychological assessment and analysis.

I agree in principle. Some of the challenge right now is that the medical profession isn't doing that. Right now, a fair bit of the medical profession in the US has embraced affirmation only approaches, and they simply don't evaluate the underlying problems at all, nor do they deny requests for medical intervention when they ought to. I don't want to have the law involved... but for all intents right now, the medical profession isn't doing their job, and that lack of appropriate care has very serious health risks that are being hand-waved away.

Curious. What makes you think that?

Years and years of watching this unfold. The fact that it's been renamed to "Gender affirming treatment" and the recognition that it by intention precludes challenging any youth's assertion that they're transgender. The fact that watchful waiting without intervention has been branded bigotry, and that any psychiatric treatment intended to lead a child to accept and become comfortable with their sexed body is treated as "conversion therapy". And for maybe the fifth time, the fact that my niece who had a history of anxiety disorders, and bipolar disorder on both sides of her family, and who developed a transgender identity over the course of just a couple of months went and got a prescription for testosterone from her very first 30 minute meeting at Planned Parenthood - without any parental approval or involvement - with absolutely no consideration given to even trying to treat her obvious emotional issues.

 

[Emily Lake]

And if you support puberty blockers and surgery for minors, as per the gender affirming model, you are supporting the sterilisation and mutilation of children.

Own it.

Reducing complex psychological and medical treatments to slogans is the hallmark of bigotryand propaganda not intelligent analysis.

Ignoring the long term risks, the destruction of future fertility, the inability of children to fully comprehend what they're consenting to, and the extremely mixed results of a highly popular socially driven medical intervention in order to support a different set of slogans is ideologically driven child abuse.

You just proved my point. Gender affirming treatment is best left to responsible medical professionals and their clients not sloganeers.

The medical profession, not state legislators, needs to come up with a set of best practice which includes not just physical medical treatment but intense psychological assessment and analysis.

I agree in principle. Some of the challenge right now is that the medical profession isn't doing that. Right now, a fair bit of the medical profession in the US has embraced affirmation only approaches, and they simply don't evaluate the underlying problems at all, nor do they deny requests for medical intervention when they ought to. I don't want to have the law involved... but for all intents right now, the medical profession isn't doing their job, and that lack of appropriate care has very serious health risks that are being hand-waved away.

Oh bull shit, Emily. I've been living this the past 10 years and NO, physicians, pediatricians, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, psychologists are simply 'embracing affirmation approaches only and don't evaluate the underlying problems'. Gender affirming care (hormones) were actually one of the LAST things recommended. You have no clue what you're talking about.

They absolutely fucking are.

Goddamned planned parenthood gave my 16 year old niece a prescription for testosterone on her very first 30 minute visit, and they didn't even bother to do a mental health evaluation of any sort. None at all. And that's NOT uncommon.

In addition, what activists are advocating for is to completely eliminate any sort of treatment at all, and use nothing other than a person's self-declaration of their gender identity as the sole arbiter of prescribing cross-sex hormones and surgery if desired.

 

[Emily Lake]

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 pretty much everyone in this thread arguing that males who identify as transwomen should use female spaces, regardless of the fact that they are physically built like males and have entirely male anatomy.

That is a non-sequitur.

Are you intending to imply that it hasn't been overlooked, it's been considered and rejected?

Otherwise I'm not seeing how it's a non sequitur at all.

 

[Toni]

I have read the opposite re: those girls/women who support abd those who do not.

Like with women only spaces, I am not certain what the correct solution actually is.

Start from first principles.

Why do we have sex segregated spaces?

What is the point?

Idiotic prudery.

What the actual fuck is wrong with you, Loren? Your position here seems to be that the only reason that we have intimate spaces separated on the basis of sex is because chicks are totally just prudes who don't want to let rando dudes check them out while they're naked.

You don't get it: if it doesn't bother Loren or his wife or her family, it doesn't matter. Loren is the only one who matters.

 

[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?

By pretty much everyone in this thread arguing that males who identify as transwomen should use female spaces, regardless of the fact that they are physically built like males and have entirely male anatomy.

That is a non-sequitur.

Yes, it is.

 

[seanie]

How so?

 

[Arctish]

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. Segregated for reasons of security, safety, minimizing chances of recidivism, and maximizing the chances of successful reintegration of prisoners into society.

Sex and gender are important factors to consider. They don't outweigh mental health or predisposition towards violence, though. A violent person should not be in unsupervised proximity to potential victims regardless of whether they're male or female. But if it's possible for prisoners to have normal social interactions in mixed sex spaces, then I think our prison system should aim for that. It's much healthier for them and better preparation for release/re-entry into society.

What criteria would you use to determine whether a male inmate should share a cell with a female inmate, or whether a set of male inmates and female inmates should use the same showering facilities together?

The same criteria used to determine whether a person should be incarcerated in a maximum security prison, a minimum security work farm, or something in between, with an added focus on individual characteristics, traits, and personal history that is, or can be, expected to impact safety and security in a mixed-sex environment.

A man who embezzled money from a pension fund so he could live beyond his means does not pose the same danger to his fellow inmates as a woman who stabbed her boyfriend with a butcher knife when he complained about her cooking. They should not be in the same cell together, not because he's male, but because the situation isn't safe for them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you really not grasp that there are lots and lots of women who have been horribly traumatized by male people

There are lots and lots of people who have been robbed by black people.

That does not justify believing black people shouldn't be allowed to pee where white people do.

How dare you steal my argument!

I still haven't seen any realistic rebuttal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You don't need to go to that extreme, even.

Accepting what a person is experiencing is an "extreme"?

Less extreme in that such color flaws are far more common.

I have a bit of a flaw in my color vision. Nothing unusual, quite a lot of men have it. And it's taken my wife a very long time to learn that some differences in produce that are obvious to her are invisible to me.

The difference between your example and my example is we can explain why you have a color issue. We can't quite explain the exact reasons those with autism experience things as they do, much like we have no idea how our mind works when it comes to gender identity and sexuality. We have the general premise at the upper levels, but the neural levels, we simply do not.

And because we understand it we can show those with regular vision what it's like--there unquestionably is a perception difference. With autism we can't--but that doesn't make it any less real. And note that nothing science can do will tell you what colors are to a tetrachromat. There are enough of them around we know what's going on, but that doesn't tell everyone else what they see--and they probably all see different things, anyway. Tetrachromancy is the result of a woman having one flawed color vision gene and one correct one and both manifesting. But that means they're subject to the same variation that exists in flawed color vision and there are so few they very well might each be unique.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I agree in principle. Some of the challenge right now is that the medical profession isn't doing that. Right now, a fair bit of the medical profession in the US has embraced affirmation only approaches, and they simply don't evaluate the underlying problems at all, nor do they deny requests for medical intervention when they ought to. I don't want to have the law involved... but for all intents right now, the medical profession isn't doing their job, and that lack of appropriate care has very serious health risks that are being hand-waved away.

The people who treat patients are normally not the ones that study what's going on. Even when a doctor makes a disease discovery it's a matter of pointing out a pattern, not a matter of solving it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Sure, sure. I mean, if we don't see genitals, nobody can tell if this person is a male or a female, right?
View attachment 51606

The supposed hazard was a rape victim being scared upon seeing a penis. Now you're admitting that that's a bogus argument.

 

[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?

This has nothing to do with my post.

(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.)

I honestly have no idea what the hell you're talking about here.

I was talking about my medical records keeping becoming female. The most recent instance the radiologist noted "normal mammogram" on an x-ray of my abdomen.

 

[laughing dog]

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

Sure, sure. I mean, if we don't see genitals, nobody can tell if this person is a male or a female, right?
View attachment 51606

The supposed hazard was a rape victim being scared upon seeing a penis. Now you're admitting that that's a bogus argument.

You got it wrong. The supposed hazard is a rape victim seeing a man in a single sex space.

 

[laughing dog]

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 pretty much everyone in this thread arguing that males who identify as transwomen should use female spaces, regardless of the fact that they are physically built like males and have entirely male anatomy.

That is a non-sequitur.

Are you intending to imply that it hasn't been overlooked, it's been considered and rejected?

Otherwise I'm not seeing how it's a non sequitur at all.

Men changing attitudes and making accommodations does not address the issue if transwomen feeling that they are women and want to be treated as such.

While I cannot speak for everyone else, behaving better as a goal is always preferred.