• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

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

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.
And the question you have always dodged is, "Who do you think is going to enforce that? Do you expect every public establishment with a restroom to have a guard at the door? Must they have one for each restroom?"

I think that you are just bullshitting, as usual.
Tom
 
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.
And the question you have always dodged is, "Who do you think is going to enforce that? Do you expect every public establishment with a restroom to have a guard at the door? Must they have one for each restroom?"

I think that you are just bullshitting, as usual.
Tom
It can be enforced by the same assholes that seem dead set on chasing women who look "mannish" out.

If they get it wrong, they get a ticket.

If the person in the bathroom assaults someone, card or no, they get put in the special prisons specifically for rapists.

If they ask for a card after the fact, the prison will gladly refer the rapist to a castration appointment, and send them to the other estate's version for rapists.

Blah blah, this is said every goddamn time..does it not get boring being told the same thing every time you deny it was said?
 
It can be enforced by the same assholes that seem dead set on chasing women who look "mannish" out.

If they get it wrong, they get a ticket.
Who is that? I don't doubt that a few exist, but I would bet a good deal that there are far more seriously traumatized women than "assholes that seem dead set on chasing women who look 'mannish' out.

Do you really not grasp that there are lots and lots of women who have been horribly traumatized by male people? Far more than the total number of trans women?

I described one, up thread. Her name is Kit, at least that's the nickname I knew her by. Her childhood was a welter of abuse. Including her older male relatives renting her out for beer and drug money to their buddies.

Starting when she was in middle school.

Fuck you trans activists who think she should just get over her privileged self and stop objecting to dudes in the restroom with her.
If the person in the bathroom assaults someone, card or no, they get put in the special prisons specifically for rapists.
That's true of anyone, male or female, in the restroom or the parking lot or woods. Whether a sexual assault or some other assault.
If they ask for a card after the fact, the prison will gladly refer the rapist to a castration appointment, and send them to the other estate's version for rapists.
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.
Blah blah, this is said every goddamn time..does it not get boring being told the same thing every time you deny it was said?
Blah blah blah.
You keep coming up with more bullshit to explain why you don't care about women, or much of anyone besides yourself.
Tom
 
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.

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.
 
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.

Extend this for "women".

You what? Read a fucking post saying "someone can get arrested or ticketed for having the cops called when they haven't done some real due diligence that shows they are not a poser" and then thinks "oh, this is not even a compromise". Im.pretty sure I also mentioned it could be an additional charge, like having a gun during a robbery.

Like seriously fuck you, though. This is the compromise. Trans people compromise that just saying they are trans isn't enough for instant recognition of the right to walk into a place. Congratulations. You get that. 🎉 🎉, and all that.

If you want to have some kinda population of Karen's barking about it, they get consequences for wasting people's time with this bullshit when they are wrong, and they have to accept that some people will show themselves as serious and they can fuck right off about genital inspections. They can look at a fucking card, and trust that violating this will get someone sent to the rapists' prison.

Nobody gets exactly what they want, on the extremes, and everyone goes away kind of unhappy, trans people because it's not sex or gender so much as material sperms and testosterone being considered and this means a longer road to feeling accepted.

For the TERFS, it means they have to accept that some folks with longer genitals than them will get to be in places and they don't get to know about it. This also is disliked by them. It's a compromise. It only ever comes up when there's a conflict, and the person who decided to make it a conflict suffers for it.

If you really want to be a fucking prude about it, literally every publicly usable bathroom in the Netherlands is either single user or has a payment point. That same infrastructure, but with the ID card I suggested. It's quite attainable and there are plenty of of examples of it working... assuming you really want fucking MechaKaren carding folks at the restroom in the first place.

I would question the sanity and morals of anyone who would push it that far, but you could.
 
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"?
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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 don't give a good goddamn about anybody's gender identity
That sounds like another problem. Everyone has a gender identity. You have a gender identity.
I do not.

This is tantamount to saying that "everyone has a soul" and insisting that atheists must also accept that souls exist even if they don't believe in them. It's the gender identity religion's version of "god believes in you though".
How does that remotely compare with a soul?

"Gender identity" = how do you see yourself.
Is it your belief that a person who declares themselves to be transgender actually perceives an opposite sexed body when they look in the mirror? That a male who identifies as a transwoman looks down in the shower and sees a vulval mound and does not see a penis?

I suspect not. I suspect what you're actually saying is that "gender identity" is how a person thinks about themselves as it relates to social stereotypes based on sex.

I, on the other hand, view "gender identity" as being a strong sense of alignment with a set of social stereotypes - and I simply do not have that at all. I don't align with the social stereotypes associated with women, and I think they're largely dogshit stereotypes in the first place. I also don't align with the social stereotypes associated with men and I think those are bullcrap. I think ALL socially constructed gender roles and stereotypes are made up crap that should go the way of the dodo.

I don't have any particular "internal sense of gender". I have a female body, and I have all of the bodily experiences that come with that. I also have 50 years worth of experience based on how people treat me because I have a female body. That's not something innate, it's learned and conditioned.
We currently have no understanding of what bit of reality causes this but there's no doubt it does exist and it does not automatically follow anatomy. Mendel had no idea about DNA but got basic genetics right anyway.
I think there's plenty of doubt that it exists. Certainly there are people who have difficulty and even distress about their sexed bodies. And certainly there are people who have a belief about what their body should have been. We have about as much evidence of gender identity being a real actual thing as we do for souls being a real actual thing - there've been several studies over the years that weigh the soul, and documented how much it weighs.
 
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.
 
Seriously, microeconomics is very explanatory, and has a lot of good math behind it to explain the relationships... but could you, with all of your experience and knowledge, actually predict how much a given person is willing to spend on eggs with a straight face? Or even what the prevailing price of eggs will be in three months time?

Observations, absolutely. Explanatory, certainly.

Predictive and falsifiable are an entirely different thing.
You're asking too much.

Can the microeconomist make a reasonably accurate prediction of the market clearing price of eggs. If so, predictive and useful.

Three months down the road isn't even their job as that's controlled by outside factors.
I'm not asking too much for what gets considered a hard science as opposed to a soft science. I'd say economics is a medium-boiled science. It's more science than political science, that's for damned sure. But it's less science than physics.

:p Math isn't even a science at all. Depending on what level you're at, it's more akin to either a language (arithmetic and algebra, etc.) or to a philosophy (set theory, number theory, etc.). It's a well-defined language and a highly consistent philosophy... but it's not actually a science by itself.
 
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.
 
For minors: puberty blockers. Push the decision off.
Puberty blockers force the pituitary and the adrenal processes out of alignment. If used for a very, very short period of time (a few months) there are minimal side effects, but still significant risks. If used for longer than that, they increase the risk of many cancers as well as heart attack and stroke, they also reduce bone density and if used too long can result in permanent osteoporosis that can't be overcome. They also impede the cognitive development that occurs during puberty that develops romantic bonding. Depending on the specific time period during which those blockers are taken, they can result in the reproductive organs being locked into a child-size aspect, and produce anorgasmia.

None of those are reversible.
 
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.
:slowclap: Thank you. I've mentioned a couple of times that I think men should be more accepting of (and less hazardous to) other males who don't conform to the restrictive expectations of what makes a man a "real" man.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom