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

[Toni]

It IS equality now (that is the point). ALL persons are considered for positions. Not just white, cis-gen males. How do you NOT see this? That in many instances the best choice is NOT A WHITE MALE. NO ONE is excluding white men - they are just considering ALL options and choosing the best one. In Biden's case, that was a black woman. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

Really? So a college local to me has a 70% non-white staff in an area that's over 50% white, and that doesn't indicate a problem to you?
...

No, it doesn't, if they are the most qualified to teach the student population. And where were you when the vast majority of college professors were white and male only? Did that not cause the same outrage?

CS did not express any outrage at the staff proportions. He asked you a question.

So a college local to me has a 70% non-white staff in an area that's over 50% white, and that doesn't indicate a problem to you?

What problem does that indicate to you?

CS did not say it indicates any problem to him. He asked P40 a question.

Really? So a college local to me has a 70% non-white staff in an area that's over 50% white, and that doesn't indicate a problem to you?

What problem do you think it suggests?

CS did not say there's any problem it suggests. He asked P40 a question.

You guys are all assuming facts not in evidence. CS appears not to give two hoots whether the color of some staff reflects the color of the community. CS appears to have asked that question in an attempt to cross-examine P40 about his views on that sort of color-matching, most likely for the purpose of collecting evidence proving P40 has a racial double-standard.

Here is me, jumping in to respond to a post that you directed towards bilby ( and others). Guess what? This is a discussion board and whoever so desires can chime in, as I’m doing now and as you did in your post.

I understand that you want to express your support for someone whose statements you agree with. It’s good to stick up for people or ideas you care about.

That’s one of the reasons a lot of people post in support of basic human rights for non-white, non-cis, not straight, persons other than male. Including plenty of white males. For some, it’s a case of basic fairness and equality or maybe equity. And some people just like change.

Others post opposing some of those ideas because they think policies are unfair or ineffective or counter productive.

Some people express their concerns in terms of fears for themselves or for others or both.

Some people are naturally more resistant to change than others.

Some people are simply bigots. And that can be applied to both conservative and progressive people.

We—mankind that is—need both those who are the gas: advocates for change and those who are brakes, who oppose change or at least that change, whatever that is. I started to write that what we don’t need is the bigots but that’s wrong, too. Bigotry, conservatism, and any resistance to change forces us to re-examine our own positions and motivations and it lets us know where some people we think of as bigots or whatever feel that the system ( term applied very loosely here) has harmed them or let them down. It forces us to look both more closely and more broadly about the implications of ideas and also the sources of problems that need changing. Or of things need to be changed. And then those things can be acknowledged and addressed.

We all need each other.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm not voting anymore. I'm not bothering because the Democratic party is ran by people like you who have decided to gleefully use people like me as a constant punching bag. Keep on with Revenge Tour '25, I'm sure it'll yield tremendous results. I mean sure, the Dems have only lost ALL THREE BRANCHES of the federal government. Surely that hasn't moved realistic and achievable progress back a solid 20 years.

Exhibit A for the problem caused by reverse discrimination.

But you should vote Democrat anyway as it's better than the alternative. Too late for that now, though.

I hear ya'. I happily voted for Kerry, Obama twice, and I voted for Hillary because I thought she was one of the most qualified people to ever run for POTUS. I was able to get on board with Biden because 1) he wasn't Trump, and 2) because he was an experienced left of center candidate.

I held my nose and voted for Harris because she wasn't Trump.

The Dems are supposed represent some of my and most people's most important interests e.g. universal healthcare, taking concrete action to fix the homelessness crisis, and getting a larger set of workers to unionize.

The passed ACA and were crushed in 2010. ACA isn't universal health care, but you'll need to complain to Sen. Nelson and Lieberman who was instrumental in stopping that and the extension of Medicare to 50 years old.

Here's the other thing: they won't get it done. They're ineffective and don't have the common sense to admit that the messages voters are receiving are losing them elections, e.g. catering to tiny voting blocks while allowing those irrelevant blocks to dictate what people perceive as the Democratic Party's stance on social issues---and the Dems do nothing to dispel it because the people running the goddamn party support it.

Because a lie is easier to tell than explaining the truth. It worked against Kerry with the Swift Boat Vets, it worked for W in the push poll during the primaries against McCain, it worked for the GOP in 2010 with the "death panels". It became so much easier, people believed that the economy in 2024 was worse than in 2020.

The Democrats have issues with messaging to the people, but that is more about the people than the Democrats. The GOP goes right for the Id. Jebus... The Malaise speech? Trump calls the American people "yippy" for worry about their retirement and college investment accounts dropping, and a not a single head is turned.

My answer to that at this point is this: go fuck yourself, I'm done with it.

Perhaps the better question to ask is, which party is actively working against my personal interests.

Christ, listening to moderates whine about the Democrats not doing enough for them is tiresome. How in the heck do you think liberals feel?!

 

[TomC]

Out of curiosity, how many Americans would even notice if Scottish people started telling our Scotus how to run this country? I, for one, wouldn't.

But this quote
" In a significant defeat for the Scottish government, the court decision will mean that transgender women can no longer sit on public boards in places set aside for women." doesn't seem like a problem to me. If the general public in Scotland wants to see a few seats reserved for women, where's the problem? If by women they mean female women, as opposed to male women, that also makes good sense to me. A trans woman is still perfectly able to be on the "public board", they just can't displace a female woman.
Why is that a problem?
Tom

 

[bilby]

It IS equality now (that is the point). ALL persons are considered for positions. Not just white, cis-gen males. How do you NOT see this? That in many instances the best choice is NOT A WHITE MALE. NO ONE is excluding white men - they are just considering ALL options and choosing the best one. In Biden's case, that was a black woman. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

Really? So a college local to me has a 70% non-white staff in an area that's over 50% white, and that doesn't indicate a problem to you?
...

No, it doesn't, if they are the most qualified to teach the student population. And where were you when the vast majority of college professors were white and male only? Did that not cause the same outrage?

CS did not express any outrage at the staff proportions. He asked you a question.

So a college local to me has a 70% non-white staff in an area that's over 50% white, and that doesn't indicate a problem to you?

What problem does that indicate to you?

CS did not say it indicates any problem to him. He asked P40 a question.

Really? So a college local to me has a 70% non-white staff in an area that's over 50% white, and that doesn't indicate a problem to you?

What problem do you think it suggests?

CS did not say there's any problem it suggests. He asked P40 a question.

You guys are all assuming facts not in evidence. CS appears not to give two hoots whether the color of some staff reflects the color of the community. CS appears to have asked that question in an attempt to cross-examine P40 about his views on that sort of color-matching, most likely for the purpose of collecting evidence proving P40 has a racial double-standard.

Really? Have you never encountered the concept of a rhetorical question?

 

[Bomb#20]

Really? So a college local to me has a 70% non-white staff in an area that's over 50% white, and that doesn't indicate a problem to you?

What problem do you think it suggests?

CS did not say there's any problem it suggests. He asked P40 a question.

I didn’t say there was any problem. I asked CS a question.

Please stop assuming facts not in evidence.

Yes, yes, we're all familiar with your fondness for playing I'm-rubber-you're-glue, but save it for when you have a case. Apparently you need a refresher course on how interrogative words work in English.

"What problem do you think it suggests?" presupposes that there is a problem he thinks it suggests, just as if I'd asked you "Which wife did you beat?" I'd have been presupposing that you beat a wife. If someone wanted to ask whether you beat any of your wives at all, without presupposing that you did, then she'd just ask you "Did you beat any of your wives?", without using the word "Which". Likewise, if you had just been asking CS a question, without presuming there was a problem in CS's opinion, then you'd have written "Do you think it suggests a problem?", without using the word "What" -- and if you'd done that then I'd have just told P40 and bb they were assuming facts not in evidence, and left you out of it.

 

[Bomb#20]

It IS equality now (that is the point). ALL persons are considered for positions. Not just white, cis-gen males. How do you NOT see this? That in many instances the best choice is NOT A WHITE MALE. NO ONE is excluding white men - they are just considering ALL options and choosing the best one. In Biden's case, that was a black woman. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

Really? So a college local to me has a 70% non-white staff in an area that's over 50% white, and that doesn't indicate a problem to you?
...

No, it doesn't, if they are the most qualified to teach the student population. And where were you when the vast majority of college professors were white and male only? Did that not cause the same outrage?

CS did not express any outrage at the staff proportions. He asked you a question.

So a college local to me has a 70% non-white staff in an area that's over 50% white, and that doesn't indicate a problem to you?

What problem does that indicate to you?

CS did not say it indicates any problem to him. He asked P40 a question.
...
You guys are all assuming facts not in evidence. CS appears not to give two hoots whether the color of some staff reflects the color of the community. CS appears to have asked that question in an attempt to cross-examine P40 about his views on that sort of color-matching, most likely for the purpose of collecting evidence proving P40 has a racial double-standard.

Really? Have you never encountered the concept of a rhetorical question?

I have. If you're hypothesizing that CS was asking P40 a rhetorical question, for the purpose of highlighting what he took to be P40's evident racial double-standard, yes, you're right, that's a viable possibility. CS can clarify if he wishes.

If you mean you were asking CS a rhetorical question, what was the assumption in your rhetoric that the staff proportions indicate a problem to CS intended to accomplish?

 

[bilby]

If you're hypothesizing that CS was asking P40 a rhetorical question, for the purpose of highlighting what he took to be P40's evident racial double-standard, yes, you're right, that's a viable possibility. CS can clarify if he wishes.

It's not just a possibility; It's a near certainty.

The use of the prefix question "Really?" is a clear indicator of it. Do you often see someone ask "Really?", and then immediately go on to ask a non-rhetorical follow up?

 

[laughing dog]

Really? So a college local to me has a 70% non-white staff in an area that's over 50% white, and that doesn't indicate a problem to you?

What problem do you think it suggests?

CS did not say there's any problem it suggests. He asked P40 a question.

I didn’t say there was any problem. I asked CS a question.

Please stop assuming facts not in evidence.

Yes, yes, we're all familiar with your fondness for playing I'm-rubber-you're-glue, but save it for when you have a case. Apparently you need a refresher course on how interrogative words work in English.

"What problem do you think it suggests?" presupposes that there is a problem he thinks it suggests, just as if I'd asked you "Which wife did you beat?" I'd have been presupposing that you beat a wife. If someone wanted to ask whether you beat any of your wives at all, without presupposing that you did, then she'd just ask you "Did you beat any of your wives?", without using the word "Which". Likewise, if you had just been asking CS a question, without presuming there was a problem in CS's opinion, then you'd have written "Do you think it suggests a problem?", without using the word "What" -- and if you'd done that then I'd have just told P40 and bb they were assuming facts not in evidence, and left you out of it.

I asked a legitimate question, because I was interested in his view because I saw no issue there at all. After all., doesn't your pedantic analysis indicate the question "So a college local to me has a 70% non-white staff in an area that's over 50% white, and that doesn't indicate a problem to you?" presupposes problem? So what are you afraid of?

In your rush to defend one of your ideological tribe, your double standard was exposed. if you don't like your blatant double standards exposed, don't employ them.

Finally, the childish refrain "I'm rubber, you're glue) means that whatever you say does not apply to me but it does apply to you. That does not apply in this instance, so please stop slandering me.

 

[ZiprHead]

Many times, perhaps most of the time, the person chosen as VP candidate brings something to help balance the ticket—often geographically determined. No one complains about that.

Because balancing can be done in different ways.

Can you name some of those ways?

 

[ZiprHead]

Here's the other thing: they won't get it done. They're ineffective and don't have the common sense to admit that the messages voters are receiving are losing them elections, e.g. catering to tiny voting blocks while allowing those irrelevant blocks to dictate what people perceive as the Democratic Party's stance on social issues---and the Dems do nothing to dispel it because the people running the goddamn party support it. Thus, the inner core and the fringe support bullshit that the vast majority don't care about or have come to despise due to the overrepresentation of fringe nonsense along with the relentless screeching at huge blocks that they're racist, misogynistic, and priveleged by birth.

Could you name those social issues the dems run on that are driving people away?

 

[Toni]

The Democrats or at least my state’s Democratic Party tries very hard to be a big tent party, welcoming people of many different stripes.

The thing is most of my fellow Dems are like me: very middle American, often with rural or small town roots but who also care very much that everyone be afforded the same rights we have always enjoyed but have often been denied simply because of what they looked like or who they loved or where they or their parents were born or whether or not their great great great grandparents came here of their own free will and were given a choice about their lives. We care about having a good life with friends, family, and decent work and a chance to live the best life we can—and that applies to everyone. We stick up for everybody. We may detest the Klan but we defend their right to play dress up and parade down the streets spewing hate. We just draw the line at the cross burning, etc.

Some of us work through churches and others simply show up at fundraisers and sandbagging fur when the river gets high or when there is a good drive or to help at the food shelf or gather donations when tragedy strikes and someone is in need.

And right along side of us at many or most of those events are members of the GOP, most of whom care about family, community and country as much as we Dems.

 

[bilby]

Lots of interesting discussion in this thread.

It seems almost a shame to point out that of the 190 posts here, by my count 17 (8.9%, or less than one of every eleven posts) have some content relevant to the court ruling referenced in the thread title.

But then, even the OP derailed that, by asking "How can we blame this on Trump?"

Is this a record? Have we had any threads so comprehensively derailed on these boards before now?

I suspect we have, but I can't think of any examples that haven't either been split, or sent to ~E~, or both.

The Kamala Harris derail alone is far larger than the non-derail content.

We can be suitably proud of ourselves (and I fully admit that I have contributed plenty of the derail posts myself).

 

[Derec]

Harris was right re: anti-fracking.

You are, as usual, wrong.
It was bad politics, because it's an unpopular position, especially in the must-win state of Pennsylvania (which she lost).
It is bad policy because we still need massive quantities of fossil fuels, and fracking provides ½ of our crude oil production and ⅔ of our natural gas production. The former allowed us to produce as much oil as Russia and Saudi Arabia and to greatly reduce our reliance on crude oil imports. The latter allowed us to export LNG to Europe, making them less reliant on Russian natural gas in the aftermath of Russian invasion of Ukraine.

You and I disagree about this but then I live in an area that bears some of the scars of this environmentally indefensible ‘strategy.’

This supposedly "environmentally indefensible strategy" allowed US to greatly reduce our reliance on oil. Natural gas is safer, cleaner, and less carbon-intensive than natural gas.

You can see coal use drop precipitously while natural gas use increases starting in late 2000s due to the Shale Revolution.

The damage is not limited to the actual locations of fracking but includes areas in multiple states where ‘mining’ for the ‘sand’ required causes a great deal of damage to areas surrounding the operation while providing no benefit and no relief from the damages and inconveniences to the neighbors.

Any extractive industries cause some level of damage. It's all about balancing costs and benefits. And benefits of plentiful oil and gas are huge. When it comes to displacement of coal by plentiful natural gas, the benefits are for the overall environment too.

Yes, Harris did criticize Biden’s earlier actions while she was campaigning against him.

She did more than criticize him. She attacked him very viciously and unfairly.

Biden is not Trump, insisting on zero criticism and absolute loyalty nor should you be Trump-like.

Nobody is asking for "absolute loyalty", but there is a difference between criticism and a vicious attack. And a premeditated attack at that, given that she already had t-shirts printed to go on sale after the debate.
Kamala Harris' 2020 campaign now selling "That Little Girl Was Me" T-shirts following viral exchange with Joe Biden
The whole episode is yet another instance of Kamala Harris' poor judgment.

Biden apparently did not hold it against Harris. She was hardly forced down his throat the way Mike Pence or JD were.

Biden painted himself into a corner. First he said he would not consider anybody with a penis. Then came the George Floyd insurrection, and he was pushed to only consider black women. In the end it was between Kamala Harris, Susan Rice, Val Demmings and, improbably, Stacey Abrams.

And he respected her enough to withdraw from the race in her favor ( I disagree with that decision) .

I disagree with it too. Biden should have withdrawn a year earlier, so that Dems could have had a real primary. Instead, Kamala Harris was forced down the throats of the electorate, and the electorate choked on her, resulting in Trump's second term.

 

[bilby]

Natural gas is safer, cleaner, and less carbon-intensive than natural gas.

That seems unlikely.

 

[Toni]

Harris was right re: anti-fracking.

You are, as usual, wrong.
It was bad politics, because it's an unpopular position, especially in the must-win state of Pennsylvania (which she lost).
It is bad policy because we still need massive quantities of fossil fuels, and fracking provides ½ of our crude oil production and ⅔ of our natural gas production. The former allowed us to produce as much oil as Russia and Saudi Arabia and to greatly reduce our reliance on crude oil imports. The latter allowed us to export LNG to Europe, making them less reliant on Russian natural gas in the aftermath of Russian invasion of Ukraine.

You and I disagree about this but then I live in an area that bears some of the scars of this environmentally indefensible ‘strategy.’

This supposedly "environmentally indefensible strategy" allowed US to greatly reduce our reliance on oil. Natural gas is safer, cleaner, and less carbon-intensive than natural gas.

You can see coal use drop precipitously while natural gas use increases starting in late 2000s due to the Shale Revolution.

The damage is not limited to the actual locations of fracking but includes areas in multiple states where ‘mining’ for the ‘sand’ required causes a great deal of damage to areas surrounding the operation while providing no benefit and no relief from the damages and inconveniences to the neighbors.

Any extractive industries cause some level of damage. It's all about balancing costs and benefits. And benefits of plentiful oil and gas are huge. When it comes to displacement of coal by plentiful natural gas, the benefits are for the overall environment too.

Yes, Harris did criticize Biden’s earlier actions while she was campaigning against him.

She did more than criticize him. She attacked him very viciously and unfairly.

Biden is not Trump, insisting on zero criticism and absolute loyalty nor should you be Trump-like.

Nobody is asking for "absolute loyalty", but there is a difference between criticism and a vicious attack. And a premeditated attack at that, given that she already had t-shirts printed to go on sale after the debate.
Kamala Harris' 2020 campaign now selling "That Little Girl Was Me" T-shirts following viral exchange with Joe Biden
The whole episode is yet another instance of Kamala Harris' poor judgment.

Biden apparently did not hold it against Harris. She was hardly forced down his throat the way Mike Pence or JD were.

Biden painted himself into a corner. First he said he would not consider anybody with a penis. Then came the George Floyd insurrection, and he was pushed to only consider black women. In the end it was between Kamala Harris, Susan Rice, Val Demmings and, improbably, Stacey Abrams.

And he respected her enough to withdraw from the race in her favor ( I disagree with that decision) .

I disagree with it too. Biden should have withdrawn a year earlier, so that Dems could have had a real primary. Instead, Kamala Harris was forced down the throats of the electorate, and the electorate choked on her, resulting in Trump's second term.

I understand that you hate Harris. I think you’d like her just fine if she were white and male and if she had been at least male, she likely would have beaten Trump but white male was a safer bet.

Having lived in/near an area where ‘sand mining’ was done, and having read extensively about the environmental consequences of fracking, I’ve reached a different conclusion than you re: the issue of fracking. We will never agree.

Biden hardly painted himself into a corner. As horrible as it is to write this, he did a brave thing to serve as the VP of the first black POTUS. He attempted another brave thing that was also self sacrificing by withdrawing in favor of Harris. The Dems could have objected and tried a special primary. Or they could have not forced him out in the first place. The unfortunate fact is that Biden was right when he entered the race against Trump in 2020: It required an older white male from the establishment, with a history of working across the aisle to calm the fears of racists whose fears were triggered by a black candidate. It’s not surprising that racists ( closet or open) are also sexist ( closet or open) and Harris, being both, could not be made ok enough by choosing Walz.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm happy to see UK using some common sense, and acknowledging that it's reasonable and appropriate to have single-sex facilities be based on actual sex rather than on an abstract and entirely subjecting feeling that can't be verified by anyone at all. It's nice to know that women in the UK don't have to worry about being exposed to random IRL dicks when they shower after their workout at the random gym, nor do they have to be on alert against some random dick-haver eyeballing them while they change.

Given that the ruling in the OP has exactly zero impact on a single part of that, I am somewhat surprised by your happiness.

The act protects people against discrimination, harassment or victimisation in employment, and as users of private and public services based on these protected characteristics: age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, and religion or belief.

For example, the ruling enables cis-women in the United Kingdom to successfully sue for discrimination, if an organization with a quota for a minimum number of female employeees in a given role, fails to meet that quota because they are counting trans-women as women.

The actual impact of this ruling on most areas of life in the UK will be minuscule, but it has been blown up into a big deal by a mainly US propaganda machine (YouTwitFace) desparate for ammunition to use in the culture wars that are pointlessly tearing your country apart, and using marginalised people as cannon fodder.

What that has to do with bathrooms is beyond me, but I am glad you are happy.

Actually, the ruling is pretty far-reaching. At the end of the day, SCOTUK ruled that any facilities that are sex-segregated for appropriate and allowable reason are explicitly sex-segregated, and that gender identity even with a GRC do not override that. That includes bathrooms, changing rooms, showers, hospital wards, sex-specific domestic violence or rape shelters, and athletic leagues and competitions. Part of their finding is that if a space or services is labeled as female, woman, F, W, or has a stick-figure in a dress, then it is understood to mean that the space or services is segregated on the basis of biological sex alone. If ANY male is allowed into those spaces by law, even those with a GRC, then that space is no longer sex-segregated and is de facto a mixed-sex space. At that point, the space CANNOT exclude any males at all. And vice- versa of course - it applies equally to spaces that are set aside for males.

The consequence of the ruling is that spaces or services that are legally allowed to be sex-segregated, and are labeled as such, MUST exclude members of the opposite sex in their entirety... and that GRCs do NOT override that requirement. It also clarifies that existing protections against discrimination in housing, employment, and some other social entitlements will continue to remain in place for transgender people. It's not legal to deny a transgender person employment on the basis of their gender identity, but it is legal to deny them use of the opposite sex's bathrooms and similar facilities.

In short, the ruling means that outside of personal social interactions transwomen are men, and transmen are women.

 

[Derec]

Natural gas is safer, cleaner, and less carbon-intensive than natural gas.

That seems unlikely.

It may seem unlikely to you, but it is true.
Carbon emissions:

Of course, natural gas is still a fossil fuels and emits large quantities of CO₂. But it is still half of what is emitted for coal power.

And natural gas, is also much cleaner burning. Burning coal emits heavy metals such as mercury and uranium, as well as toxic organic compounds.

 

[TomC]

Of course, natural gas is still a fossil fuels and emits large quantities of CO2. But it is still half of what is emitted for coal power.

The problem is that you didn't post that. You posted that natural gas is as clean as natural gas.
Even I knew what you meant. Natural gas is much better than coal.

But even better would be conservation. And use renewables. I'm no fan of nuclear, but it's cleaner than any fossil fuel (until it isn't).
Let's try more conservation, IMHO.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

Lots of interesting discussion in this thread.

It seems almost a shame to point out that of the 190 posts here, by my count 17 (8.9%, or less than one of every eleven posts) have some content relevant to the court ruling referenced in the thread title.

But then, even the OP derailed that, by asking "How can we blame this on Trump?"

Is this a record? Have we had any threads so comprehensively derailed on these boards before now?
...

It's not clear it's really a derail though. Suppose the Indian Supreme Court had ruled that some native Hindi speaker of Indo-Aryan ancestry who'd sued to get a government job reserved for Santals under the local quota system wasn't eligible, because he wasn't Santal, even though he self-identified as Santal. I think it's unrealistic to expect the discussion to confine itself to the legal merits of the court ruling vs. the merits of self-ID policies, and to expect no one to call into question whether there should be a quota in the first place for how many Santals get government jobs.

 

[bilby]

Natural gas is safer, cleaner, and less carbon-intensive than natural gas.

That seems unlikely.

It may seem unlikely to you, but it is true.
Carbon emissions:

Of course, natural gas is still a fossil fuels and emits large quantities of CO₂. But it is still half of what is emitted for coal power.

And natural gas, is also much cleaner burning. Burning coal emits heavy metals such as mercury and uranium, as well as toxic organic compounds.

It's still no safer, no cleaner, and no less carbon intensive than natural gas, though. 486 is no less than 486, unless there's been some radical mathematical shake-up since I was at school.