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

[Toni]

I was talking about conditioned to fear as being a reason for a law protecting against that fear.

Conditioned to fear something that ACTUALLY CAUSES WOMEN HARM ON A REGULAR BASIS. Seriously, we're not talking about incredibly rare cases of men sexually harassing, sexually assaulting, or raping women. We're talking about 25% of women having been subjected to an attempted or completed rape at least once in their life, and over 80% of women having been sexually assaulted in their life.

It's an entirely reasonable concern based on what actually for realsies happens to us way, way more frequently than it should.

We haven't established that anybody has been harmed by a penis on a female-presenting person in the women's room.

That’s absolutely not true. Upthread I linked articles about a supposedly trans student who raised two girls in the girls restroom—at two different schools. This student was ‘female presenting’ enough that the school allowed them into the girl’s restroom.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So the Klanners can keep blacks out of the white restroom?

So you’re saying any space or service that differentiates between female and male is akin to racism?

It’s a take.

No. I was looking at the consequences of accepting conditioned fear as reason for legal enforcement.

It's just conditioned fear about child abduction, abuse, and molestation. There's no reason to legally require background checks for adults who care for kids. Totally unreasonable.

It's just conditioned fear about dogs maybe biting someone. There's no reason to legally require leashes.

None of those are simply conditioned fears.

 

[seanie]

You don’t think men present a greater threat to women, than women do to men?

It’s a take.

 

[Politesse]

They do, but there's a word for introducing legal penalties simply fir belonging to a social class, irrespective of whether one has committed a crime.

 

[TomC]

They do, but there's a word for introducing legal penalties simply fir belonging to a social class, irrespective of whether one has committed a crime.

Which is irrelevant to the current discussion.
Nobody is introducing legal penalties for simply belonging to a social class.
Tom

 

[Toni]

They do, but there's a word for introducing legal penalties simply fir belonging to a social class, irrespective of whether one has committed a crime.

What, in your view, would be the best way to accommodate trans individuals who may be at different stages of their transition in intimate spaces that are normally segregated by sex?

I am sincere when I say that I absolutely do want everyone to feel ( and be) safe, secure, comfortable using whichever restroom and locker room they feel most comfortable using. I don’t want anyone further traumatized or ostracized.

 

[Politesse]

The best, or the most plausible? The latter seems like requiring that a single use facility is always available if needed for those who need it. The best would be a cultural shift.

But federal law is not the right instrument to effect either change, in any case. There is no solution that all states and cities would find acceptable as a top-down, firearm-enforced mandate.

 

[Toni]

The best, or the most plausible? The latter seems like requiring that a single use facility is always available if needed for those who need it. The best would be a cultural shift.

But federal law is not the right instrument to effect either change, in any case. There is no solution that all states and cities would find acceptable as a top-down, firearm-enforced mandate.

I wasn’t even thinking about federal law, to tell the truth. I was thinking ideal ( but in the real world) which I get is something of an oxymoron.

In my ideal world, there would be no sexual assault or history of such and everyone would want the best for everyone. I still imagine individual quirks or preferences: different people have different comfort levels about their own bodies and other people’s bodies and I see that as something that is to at least some extent, inborn. I wrote this as someone who is more extrovert than introvert, married to someone more introvert than extrovert. Our kids were evenly split between primarily extrovert and primarily introvert. The extroverts in my family are more relaxed about nudity, bodies. The introverts are more modest/privacy oriented. Big exceptions to this generalization. Also I don’t mean to suggest that all extroverts are free of inhibitions about bodies and bodily functions or that all introverts are inhibited. It’s just how things fall in my family, and generally speaking, my family of origin. My two closest female friends are more introvert than extrovert and have few inhibitions about showering, or changing clothes , for instance, with a same sex friend. I’m guessing that outside of a locker room, the men I know are less inclined to share a shower or change clothes in front of a friend of any gender, based on what I know about males I am closely familiar with.

In addition, some but not all ( or nearly enough) restrooms provide a place to change a diaper or to breastfeed a child. Infants are highly variable about how much distraction they will tolerate when being breastfed. Again, personal experience.

My friends and family may be weird but we’re not that weird or actually not that unusual.

 

[seanie]

I was talking about conditioned to fear as being a reason for a law protecting against that fear.

Conditioned to fear something that ACTUALLY CAUSES WOMEN HARM ON A REGULAR BASIS. Seriously, we're not talking about incredibly rare cases of men sexually harassing, sexually assaulting, or raping women. We're talking about 25% of women having been subjected to an attempted or completed rape at least once in their life, and over 80% of women having been sexually assaulted in their life.

It's an entirely reasonable concern based on what actually for realsies happens to us way, way more frequently than it should.

We haven't established that anybody has been harmed by a penis on a female-presenting person in the women's room.

Katie Dolatowski.

 

[seanie]

They do, but there's a word for introducing legal penalties simply fir belonging to a social class, irrespective of whether one has committed a crime.

It’s not a legal penalty to require men to stay out of some spaces reserved for women.

 

[laughing dog]

They do, but there's a word for introducing legal penalties simply fir belonging to a social class, irrespective of whether one has committed a crime.

It’s not a legal penalty to require men to stay out of some spaces reserved for women.

And how does insure such a requirement is meant?

 

[seanie]

Edit your sentence.

 

[seanie]

And think about your question.

Are you suggesting that every male should be allowed into spaces reserved for females?

No power of removal, no banning from a service, no civil or criminal penalty at all?

Quite the contempt you have for women there.

 

[seanie]

Any man should be allowed to access spaces reserved for women, as long as they want to?

Do you think you’ll get wide public acceptance for this proposition?

 

[seanie]

Because anyone who “considers themselves a woman is a woman”.

And so any man who says they “consider themselves a woman” is good to go?

Have you really thought the implications in terms of policy and law?

 

[TomC]

Because anyone who “considers themselves a woman is a woman”.

And so any man who says they “consider themselves a woman” is good to go?

Have you really thought the implications in terms of policy and law?

Bizarrely ironic, isn't it?
Males often make other people uncomfortable and feel unsafe. The trans activists solution is to give males an entitlement to use the women's restroom!
WTF?
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Have you really thought the implications in terms of policy and law?

Pretty ironic comment, coming from someone who adamantly refuses to see this in any other lens than their very specific obsession with "a man in a woman's locker room", never "what are the rights of a citizen?" or "what sort of powers do I want my government to have?", or "Am I comfortable with everything that will result from this ruling?", or "Why are most of the entities funding and promoting the campaign I support hard right-wing authoritarians?"

 

[Emily Lake]

Especially when you further go on to maliciously imply that Bomb would teach children to take by force (Hit or be hit, never share even when it costs you nothing to do so) rather than to respect both law and social convention.

Shaming children for sharing is a hit or be hit mentality.

Bomb#20 did no such thing. Either learn to read for comprehension, or stop maliciously misrepresenting other poster's positions. Either will do.

 

[seanie]

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to have separate male and female spaces in some circumstances.

If you object, why aren’t you arguing for no separation at all?

Instead of insisting men should be allowed into spaces reserved for women, if they consider themselves women?

 

[Emily Lake]

@Politesse - this is the post you chastised me for not making, and to which you haven't responded. Care to have a go? I put a LOT of effort into responding to you civilly, and comprehensively

I chastised you for not asking me a bunch of weird questions about my position that you'd already asked a dozen times before? I must say, I do not recall that.

Are you high? Like seriously, dude, are you on drugs while you're posting? Because if you are, then I'll cut you some slack. But if not... then well, you're simply disingenuous to an irrational degree.

Knew you were going to do that. Classic alt-right exchange. Demand a long-ass post detailing my position, that takes a half hour to write out a thoughtful response to, kvetch that Im not "engaging" with you if I refuse to play ball, but once I do, ignoring the contents of that response entirely, choosing instead to just repeat the same taglines you started out with as though they were a response, despite having nothing particularly obvious to do with my post.

I'm not doing another one of these! If you can't discuss things in even a semblance of good faith, why are you so confident that people will want to hear your opinions on anything?

This ^ This is you chastising me for not engaging with your thoughtful response, while you simultaneously completely ignored my thoughtful response to your long post. And when I provide you with the post that you obviously skipped... you once more pretend like I didn't engage in good faith, so you can get a couple of cheap shots in and pat yourself on the back.