• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

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

Emily Lake said:
Toni said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Emily Lake said:
Loren Pechtel said:
laughing dog said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Record of "exposure". But is that flashing?

Look at the law in Vermont. At the state level there is no such act as indecent exposure. You're free to walk around naked if you want. But it is not legal to undress in front of someone. Naked (permitted) vs flasher (not permitted.)
Click to expand...
Really? You are picking the nit of exposure vs flashing for a REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER?
Click to expand...
Did you miss my point about people getting on the sex offender registry for simple exposure? They've gotten better about it now but there have been people on the registry for peeing in an alley.
Click to expand...
You seem to have skipped right past...
Emily Lake said:
Criminal record of felony indecent exposure including public masturbation.
Click to expand...
Oh, multiple counts of felony indecent exposure. MULTIPLE COUNTS.
Click to expand...
Given the witch hunting and the fact that they are not locked up after multiple "felony" convictions makes me question what actually happened.
Click to expand...
To be fair: Trump has not been locked up after conviction of 34 felonies, so..,
Click to expand...
... so therefore a man with multiple felonies for indecent exposure getting his dick out in front of a bunch of non-consenting women is perfectly acceptable?

I seriously don't know what you think is "fair" in this context, Toni.
Click to expand...
I seriously don’t think you clocked that I was responding to Loren’s specious ‘argument.’
 
Toni said:
The reality is that men's sports do get more funding, still get first/best shot at facilities, practice times, game times, transportation, etc. The excuse is that men's sports teams generate more income but I'd really love to see an actual accountant's analysis of that.
Click to expand...
Self-funding teams have been cut to comply with Title IX.
 
laughing dog said:
seanie said:
If Title IX forbids discrimination in the basis of sex, how are there separate categories for men and women in American sports?
Click to expand...

If someone persistently repeats a question to which they acknowledge understanding the answer, how can they be considered to a serious participant?
Click to expand...
I haven't kept up with the exact interchange, but the situation is possible when they understand but do not accept the answer. Doesn't matter how many times you tell me the moonwalkers could live on green cheese, I don't believe they can.
 
Bomb#20 said:
Earlier you accused Loren of being racist because he was against racial discrimination; now you're accusing him of being racist because he's in favor of property rights, Ms. "I respect Loren almost always"? If that's how you talk to people you respect, how do you talk to people you don't respect?
Click to expand...
The problem is that there are a range of positions, from the old repression to equity. My position of favoring equality (but deeply suspicious of equity) is "racist" compared to her position of equity, thus I must be a racist. Unfortunately, there are those who pretend to be for equality but really are for racism.

Bomb#20 said:
Toni said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Which completely fails to address the equity issue.

And note that I'm not the only one who recognized that your "justice" frame doesn't work.
Click to expand...
I definitely know that you are not the only person completely at home with his white male straight cis blonde haired blue eyed privilege who has zero intention of relaxing his death grip on that privilege.

Although, tbh, the cis, straight blonde and blue eyed part is not required for that death hold on white or male privilege.
Click to expand...
You knew, of course, that Loren was talking about me when he said he's not the only one. Are you talking about me too when you say you know Loren's not the only one? Are you accusing me of racism because I don't think tearing down a fence somebody put up on his property is "Justice"?
Click to expand...
We look at economic reality rather than pie in the sky. You normally do not put up a solid fence unless you are trying to block eyes from outside. Thus it's obviously a paid game, tearing down the fence is economic nonsense.

Bomb#20 said:
Once upon a time left-wing ideologues tried to sell abolishing property rights by claiming economic theory proved capitalism was exploitative, but then economists realized the Labor Theory of Value was metaphysical drivel. So then left-wing ideologues tried to sell abolishing property rights by telling the common people it would be good for them because property only benefits the rich, but then they tried it over and over, and the common people always got a police state and usually a famine out of it. So now left-wing ideologues are trying to sell abolishing property rights by claiming everyone who disagrees with them is a racist. Unless the trend in leftists' arguments' intellectual sophistication reverses, their current iteration will have to be the last.
Click to expand...
I generally agree, but quibble around the edges.

The Labor Theory of Value is not drivel, but it's a cart before the horse. It "works" in that in a competitive marketplace the price of anything will drop to labor + risk premium, but the risk premium is a function of labor and uncertainty, thus it's labor * multiplier which looks like labor. Any product where the labor is higher than the market price disappears or some approximation thereof so you do not see any counterexamples. (I'm sure there's still some manufacturing of buggy whips for performing arts.)
 
Toni said:
seanie said:
laughing dog said:
seanie said:
You could try explaining how separate men’s and women’s sports are allowed, whilst discrimination on the basis of sex is forbidden?

How does that work?
Click to expand...
Very well.
Click to expand...
How so?

What’s the justification for separate men’s and women’s sports, if discrimination on the basis is sex is forbidden?
Click to expand...
Asked and answered: Separate but equal.
Click to expand...
And we should know that separate but equal is never equal.
 
Toni said:
Secondly, I’m not certain why you ( or Loren, if he did so) saw that illustration as being about race. I did not. I saw it as being about removing unnecessary barriers so that everyone has equal access to all the good things in life. Loren thought the illustration was about stealing. I think that says a lot about his world view and mine. You of course are entitled to your own
Click to expand...
It's my "worldview" in the sense that I looked at the situation from a standpoint of why is this the way it is. The fence exists. Why does it exist? Fences keep things and keep things out. This fence is solid, not chain link. Thus whatever it's built to separate is something that passes through chain link. But it's open at top, thus it must be something that's at the height of the fence or lower. Somebody paid a fair amount of money for that fence, they must be intending to gain some benefit. There's only one answer that comes to mind: vision. They're selling tickets. And that means tear down the fence and they won't be able to operate anymore. You don't gain for everybody, you lose for everybody.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Toni said:
Secondly, I’m not certain why you ( or Loren, if he did so) saw that illustration as being about race. I did not. I saw it as being about removing unnecessary barriers so that everyone has equal access to all the good things in life. Loren thought the illustration was about stealing. I think that says a lot about his world view and mine. You of course are entitled to your own
Click to expand...
It's my "worldview" in the sense that I looked at the situation from a standpoint of why is this the way it is. The fence exists. Why does it exist? Fences keep things and keep things out. This fence is solid, not chain link. Thus whatever it's built to separate is something that passes through chain link. But it's open at top, thus it must be something that's at the height of the fence or lower. Somebody paid a fair amount of money for that fence, they must be intending to gain some benefit. There's only one answer that comes to mind: vision. They're selling tickets. And that means tear down the fence and they won't be able to operate anymore. You don't gain for everybody, you lose for everybody.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t make the fence fair.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Toni said:
seanie said:
laughing dog said:
seanie said:
You could try explaining how separate men’s and women’s sports are allowed, whilst discrimination on the basis of sex is forbidden?

How does that work?
Click to expand...
Very well.
Click to expand...
How so?

What’s the justification for separate men’s and women’s sports, if discrimination on the basis is sex is forbidden?
Click to expand...
Asked and answered: Separate but equal.
Click to expand...
And we should know that separate but equal is never equal.
Click to expand...
It’s not.

We also know that men are loathe to handle their own burden and happy to push their shit on women.

No, it’s not me comparing trans individuals to shit. It’s me saying that men don’t accept responsibility for their own shit ( in this case, shit = sexual violence, violence in general, violence towards anyone not in their ‘in’ group and further using fear of the consequences—more violence—to control women and anyone else not in their ‘in’ group—especially sexual violence.

Men could resolve the situation they created by dealing with whatever shit inside them that drives them to violence. Women would not have a special fear of strange penises in their intimate spaces. Of course that would mean losing control over women and having to deal with their own shit.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Bomb#20 said:
Earlier you accused Loren of being racist because he was against racial discrimination; now you're accusing him of being racist because he's in favor of property rights, Ms. "I respect Loren almost always"? If that's how you talk to people you respect, how do you talk to people you don't respect?
Click to expand...
The problem is that there are a range of positions, from the old repression to equity. My position of favoring equality (but deeply suspicious of equity) is "racist" compared to her position of equity, thus I must be a racist. Unfortunately, there are those who pretend to be for equality but really are for racism.

Bomb#20 said:
Toni said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Which completely fails to address the equity issue.

And note that I'm not the only one who recognized that your "justice" frame doesn't work.
Click to expand...
I definitely know that you are not the only person completely at home with his white male straight cis blonde haired blue eyed privilege who has zero intention of relaxing his death grip on that privilege.

Although, tbh, the cis, straight blonde and blue eyed part is not required for that death hold on white or male privilege.
Click to expand...
You knew, of course, that Loren was talking about me when he said he's not the only one. Are you talking about me too when you say you know Loren's not the only one? Are you accusing me of racism because I don't think tearing down a fence somebody put up on his property is "Justice"?
Click to expand...
We look at economic reality rather than pie in the sky. You normally do not put up a solid fence unless you are trying to block eyes from outside. Thus it's obviously a paid game, tearing down the fence is economic nonsense.

Bomb#20 said:
Once upon a time left-wing ideologues tried to sell abolishing property rights by claiming economic theory proved capitalism was exploitative, but then economists realized the Labor Theory of Value was metaphysical drivel. So then left-wing ideologues tried to sell abolishing property rights by telling the common people it would be good for them because property only benefits the rich, but then they tried it over and over, and the common people always got a police state and usually a famine out of it. So now left-wing ideologues are trying to sell abolishing property rights by claiming everyone who disagrees with them is a racist. Unless the trend in leftists' arguments' intellectual sophistication reverses, their current iteration will have to be the last.
Click to expand...
I generally agree, but quibble around the edges.

The Labor Theory of Value is not drivel, but it's a cart before the horse. It "works" in that in a competitive marketplace the price of anything will drop to labor + risk premium, but the risk premium is a function of labor and uncertainty, thus it's labor * multiplier which looks like labor. Any product where the labor is higher than the market price disappears or some approximation thereof so you do not see any counterexamples. (I'm sure there's still some manufacturing of buggy whips for performing arts.)
Click to expand...
So you’ve never played baseball, then.

A solid fence limits the distance a ball can fly.

But you’re right: why is there any fence? What is lost if a short kid sees the game?

How much is enough profit? How much profit is needed to offset the damage done to those inadequately compensated?

Why do some people only feel ok if they feel they are above everyone else?
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Toni said:
The reality is that men's sports do get more funding, still get first/best shot at facilities, practice times, game times, transportation, etc. The excuse is that men's sports teams generate more income but I'd really love to see an actual accountant's analysis of that.
Click to expand...
Self-funding teams have been cut to comply with Title IX.
Click to expand...
Bull fucking shit.
 
Bomb#20 said:
Yes, exactly -- it was about how left-wingers are economic creationists who moronically believe barriers excluding some people from equal access to all the good things in life are the reason not everyone has access to the good things in life, because they systematically do not understand how excluding some people from equal access contributes to causing all the good things in life to come into existence in the first place, and because they systematically refuse to educate themselves about what the causes are and why they work, because they have faith that all the good things in life come into existence without any mechanism causing it to happen, exactly like a Christian fundamentalist who has faith that all the species of life came into existence without any mechanism causing it to happen.
Click to expand...
Love the term "economic creationists". I think it expresses the concept better than my comparison to an infinite pool of money that can be taxed.
 
Wow. I just cannot believe how openly some people think that everyone having access to good education, good food and healthcare and decent, safe housing and decent jobs is hindering rich people from having good things.

Y’all aren’t capitalists. Y’all are feudalists and think of yourself as at least minor royalty. You have to protect what is yours by putting up big walls and moats. You are soooo insecure that you can’t feel good about yourselves unless someone else lets you know they are struggling. You rely entirely upon some sense of superiority over others in order to feel ok about yourselves.

That’s some real fucked up shit.
 
Toni said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Toni said:
The reality is that men's sports do get more funding, still get first/best shot at facilities, practice times, game times, transportation, etc. The excuse is that men's sports teams generate more income but I'd really love to see an actual accountant's analysis of that.
Click to expand...
Self-funding teams have been cut to comply with Title IX.
Click to expand...
Bull fucking shit.
Click to expand...
It's a big Internet, one could probably find an episode somewhere that kinda resembles that. But, yeah, smells like bullshit to me also.
Tom
 
TomC said:
Toni said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Toni said:
The reality is that men's sports do get more funding, still get first/best shot at facilities, practice times, game times, transportation, etc. The excuse is that men's sports teams generate more income but I'd really love to see an actual accountant's analysis of that.
Click to expand...
Self-funding teams have been cut to comply with Title IX.
Click to expand...
Bull fucking shit.
Click to expand...
It's a big Internet, one could probably find an episode somewhere that kinda resembles that. But, yeah, smells like bullshit to me also.
Tom
Click to expand...
The reduction of any mens team is due to choices made by the institution to keep large American football squads. Those teams typically have large numbers (which is not mandated by the sport): 50 to well over 100 spots for males.
 
Toni said:
Emily Lake said:
TomC said:
Toni said:
Yikes. I had not considered the ill effects possible with the all gender bathrooms. How horrible.
Click to expand...
He was referring to high school age kids.
People who are among the stupidest and meanest among us.
Old enough to get good as bullying. Too young to have outgrown the tendency.

C'mon Toni, you're a parent. You know what I am talking about.
Tom
Click to expand...
Also he was relying on the unstated assumption that nobody can tell that male teenagers are males in the first place, and that nobody at all knew them to be males before they found their true girly selves that summer between 8th and 9th grade.
Click to expand...
Knock off the bullshit Emily.
Click to expand...
What do you think is bullshit, Toni?

Poli's argument that high school males would be "outed" by using a separate, unisex restroom rather than the female facilities inherently relies on the assumption that nobody knows they're a male in the first place. We're talking about post pubertal males, who somehow nobody at all can identify as males at all. Furthermore, it relies on the assumption that nobody has ever known them as a male.

Perhaps Poli's scenario is talking about the new student who just moved here from a different state and nobody knows them, and they've been taking puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones since they were 12, and they've already had a penectomy and orchiectomy, and they're just naturally on the short end of the distribution of male heights, and they have unusually small hands and feet for a male? If that's the case, sure, maybe that one individual might end up "outed"...

But the vast majority of high school males do NOT fit that description, and pretty much all of their classmates already knows they're males.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Toni said:
seanie said:
laughing dog said:
seanie said:
You could try explaining how separate men’s and women’s sports are allowed, whilst discrimination on the basis of sex is forbidden?

How does that work?
Click to expand...
Very well.
Click to expand...
How so?

What’s the justification for separate men’s and women’s sports, if discrimination on the basis is sex is forbidden?
Click to expand...
Asked and answered: Separate but equal.
Click to expand...
And we should know that separate but equal is never equal.
Click to expand...
To be clear, we have facilities and sports separated on the basis of sex because males and females are NOT physically equal. They're separated to increase equal opportunity to participate in society; removing that separation has the perverse effect of excluding the ability of women and girls to participate equally.
 
Kylie said:
Any definition of "womanhood" based on something like chromosomes or body structures is fundamentally flawed. There will always be some exception that the people proposing such definitions will disagree with.
Click to expand...
Any definition of "womanhood" based on subjective unverifiable feelings inside someone's head is far more flawed, because it lacks anything remotely resembling a cohesive meaning.

Furthermore, sex is a universal definition that applies to all species that reproduce via the merging of two different sized gametes (anisogamy). Every anisogamous species has developed two distinctly different reproductive systems. One of those systems evolved in tandem with large gametes, the other evolved in tandem with small gametes. Individuals within a species that have the system associated with large gametes are called females; those that have the other system are males.

People can disagree with that. But they're wrong, and they're working from an ideological faith-based perspective. They're not working from a scientific perspective.
 
Toni said:
Wow. I just cannot believe how openly some people think that everyone having access to good education, good food and healthcare and decent, safe housing and decent jobs is hindering rich people from having good things.

Y’all aren’t capitalists. Y’all are feudalists and think of yourself as at least minor royalty. You have to protect what is yours by putting up big walls and moats. You are soooo insecure that you can’t feel good about yourselves unless someone else lets you know they are struggling. You rely entirely upon some sense of superiority over others in order to feel ok about yourselves.

That’s some real fucked up shit.
Click to expand...
Nobody in this thread has expressed the view you're complaining about.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Love the term "economic creationists". I think it expresses the concept better than my comparison to an infinite pool of money that can be taxed.
Click to expand...
Literally anything expresses the concept better than that oft-repeated strawman.

Literally nobody believes in an infinite pool of money that can be taxed, other than the fictional characters you invent and control, and who you prefer to argue against because real people tend to be able to easily refute your nonsense.

There are plenty of misguided idiots who argue economics, but none make this argument you so desparately wish they might.

Let it go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom