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

[GenesisNemesis]

These "set asides" (aka quotas) for women should not exist.
And without women being given an exalted standing under UK law, the issue of how to define "woman" would be a less thorny one.

Right, for you, everything should be quotas for white heterosexual cisgendered men.

Why did you write that? Derec is against quotas in general. You knew that, didn't you? Your post appears to be character assassination. Attack the post, not the poster.

I said it because it is correct. There was never a time that quotas did not exist in this country. Prior to affirmative action and the civil rights movement, virtually all available spots, certainly for positions of authority, were reserved for white heterosexual cisgendered men, preferably WASP. Since that changed people like Derec are whining that their unearned privileges have been taken from them.

I.e., you said it because Derec is in your outgroup and like any good tribalist you regard your outgroup as interchangeable parts. You have no evidence against Derec; you simply lumped him in with the collective you classify as "people like Derec". That there was never a time that quotas did not exist in this country is not a reason to think other people can't be in favor of quotas not existing merely because you aren't.

You're in the "anti-woke" ingroup. And you refuse to see your own tribalist behavior.

 

[pood]

The law is not a good way to settle questions of objective fact. Indeed, the law is a fucking horrible way to do that.

The law is for arbitrating on questions where a single answer is needed, but none is available; It is a way to take a variety of opinions that are causing strife, bickering, and quarrels, and telling those who hold all bar one of the positions to sit down and shut up.

That's useful for running a society, but as a path to the truth, it is no better than a religion - indeed, it's exactly the same as a religion, other than in the matter of who is selected as the arbitrary voice of authority.

"The law says X" is invariably, inevitably, and by design, and argument from authority fallacy. You can use it for loads of valuable purposes, but determining factual information about reality is not one of those purposes.

The judgement cited in the OP adds nothing whatsoever to the ongoing debate about who is a woman and who is not; It just says that if you are making decisions to which the Equality Act 2010 applies, you are not allowed to do so using any definition other than the one the court just decided you must use.

Judges have also, in the past, ruled that the definition of "US citizen" cannot include negroes; That Pi is exactly equal to 3; and that various defendants were able to employ magic and/or the assistance of the devil to harm their fellow citizens.

Interestingly, this is the same reasoning employed by the philosopher Brad Monton in objecting to the Kitzmiller decision, that it is improper to decide by judicial fiat what is or is not science.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

These "set asides" (aka quotas) for women should not exist.
And without women being given an exalted standing under UK law, the issue of how to define "woman" would be a less thorny one.

Right, for you, everything should be quotas for white heterosexual cisgendered men.

Why did you write that? Derec is against quotas in general. You knew that, didn't you? Your post appears to be character assassination. Attack the post, not the poster.

I said it because it is correct. There was never a time that quotas did not exist in this country. Prior to affirmative action and the civil rights movement, virtually all available spots, certainly for positions of authority, were reserved for white heterosexual cisgendered men, preferably WASP. Since that changed people like Derec are whining that their unearned privileges have been taken from them.

I.e., you said it because Derec is in your outgroup and like any good tribalist you regard your outgroup as interchangeable parts. You have no evidence against Derec; you simply lumped him in with the collective you classify as "people like Derec". That there was never a time that quotas did not exist in this country is not a reason to think other people can't be in favor of quotas not existing merely because you aren't.

You're in the "anti-woke" ingroup. And you refuse to see your own tribalist behavior.

Further, it's impossible to remove emotion from politics. We're all attached to various political ideas because of emotion and pretending you're a super objective political thinker denies that fact.

 

[Bomb#20]

Everyone else is a DEI hire and therefore unqualified.

...
And second, when have you ever seen Derec say all DEI hires are unqualified? An employer making a DEI choice can sometimes hire the most qualified candidate by dumb luck even when merit isn't the criterion the choice is based on.

Derec has often couched his criticism of people in terms of their race, gender, and religion. I don’t recall him commenting on someone’s sexual orientation. A notable example was his repeated characterization of Kamala Harris as a DEI hire. Calling someone a DEI hire does say that they are not as qualified as white men.

You're mixing up characteristics of individuals with statistical averages. If you pick a basketball player by having candidates shoot hoops and picking the one who scores the most baskets, you'll typically get a better player than if you pick one by having the candidates draw straws. But there are no guaranteed in life -- the best player might draw the short straw and the third best player might have a good day during the test. Hiring on the basis of DEI is like hiring by drawing straws or hiring alphabetically or any other selection method not based on measuring skills -- on average you'll get less skilled people that way. But individuals aren't averages.

(Of course, Vice Presidents are normally chosen by selection methods not based on measuring skills. Usually it's appeal to some demographic the Presidential candidate thinks will help win the election -- so there's little reason to think DEI hires will be any worse on average than other VPs. For that matter, I can only think of one VP in living memory who was chosen for his skill set, and we saw how badly that worked out.)

 

[Toni]

Everyone else is a DEI hire and therefore unqualified.

...
And second, when have you ever seen Derec say all DEI hires are unqualified? An employer making a DEI choice can sometimes hire the most qualified candidate by dumb luck even when merit isn't the criterion the choice is based on.

Derec has often couched his criticism of people in terms of their race, gender, and religion. I don’t recall him commenting on someone’s sexual orientation. A notable example was his repeated characterization of Kamala Harris as a DEI hire. Calling someone a DEI hire does say that they are not as qualified as white men.

You're mixing up characteristics of individuals with statistical averages. If you pick a basketball player by having candidates shoot hoops and picking the one who scores the most baskets, you'll typically get a better player than if you pick one by having the candidates draw straws. But there are no guaranteed in life -- the best player might draw the short straw and the third best player might have a good day during the test. Hiring on the basis of DEI is like hiring by drawing straws or hiring alphabetically or any other selection method not based on measuring skills -- on average you'll get less skilled people that way. But individuals aren't averages.

(Of course, Vice Presidents are normally chosen by selection methods not based on measuring skills. Usually it's appeal to some demographic the Presidential candidate thinks will help win the election -- so there's little reason to think DEI hires will be any worse on average than other VPs. For that matter, I can only think of one VP in living memory who was chosen for his skill set, and we saw how badly that worked out.)

No, I was talking about Derec’s characterization of people in certain positions previously ( and currently) which exclusively went to white males who do not belong to the category white male. He has repeatedly called Kamala Harris a DEI hire. Never mind that white male has been the preferred DEI hiring category for centuries. Which has been effective because laws and tradition have assigned the position of ‘leader’ to a single category: white male and some people still cling to the belief that is the best category because it is traditional and customary and does not represent change or a challenge to the status quo.

I’m very well aware of how candidates for high office are chosen.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Everyone else is a DEI hire and therefore unqualified.

...
And second, when have you ever seen Derec say all DEI hires are unqualified? An employer making a DEI choice can sometimes hire the most qualified candidate by dumb luck even when merit isn't the criterion the choice is based on.

Derec has often couched his criticism of people in terms of their race, gender, and religion. I don’t recall him commenting on someone’s sexual orientation. A notable example was his repeated characterization of Kamala Harris as a DEI hire. Calling someone a DEI hire does say that they are not as qualified as white men.

You're mixing up characteristics of individuals with statistical averages. If you pick a basketball player by having candidates shoot hoops and picking the one who scores the most baskets, you'll typically get a better player than if you pick one by having the candidates draw straws. But there are no guaranteed in life -- the best player might draw the short straw and the third best player might have a good day during the test. Hiring on the basis of DEI is like hiring by drawing straws or hiring alphabetically or any other selection method not based on measuring skills -- on average you'll get less skilled people that way. But individuals aren't averages.

(Of course, Vice Presidents are normally chosen by selection methods not based on measuring skills. Usually it's appeal to some demographic the Presidential candidate thinks will help win the election -- so there's little reason to think DEI hires will be any worse on average than other VPs. For that matter, I can only think of one VP in living memory who was chosen for his skill set, and we saw how badly that worked out.)

No, I was talking about Derec’s characterization of people in certain positions previously ( and currently) which exclusively went to white males who do not belong to the category white male. He has repeatedly called Kamala Harris a DEI hire. Never mind that white make has been the preferred DEI hiring category for centuries. Which has been effective because laws and tradition have assigned the position of ‘leader’ to a single category: white male and some people still cling to the belief that is the best category because it is traditional and customary and dies not represent change or a challenge to the status quo.

I’m very well aware of how candidates for high office are chosen.

And this is exactly what I mean by anti-woke tribalism. The anti-woke will always defend other anti-wokeists no matter what bullshit they spew. And anti-wokeists will never treat other anti-wokeists with the same suspicion as those who are perceived as "woke".

 

[laughing dog]

Everyone else is a DEI hire and therefore unqualified.

...
And second, when have you ever seen Derec say all DEI hires are unqualified? An employer making a DEI choice can sometimes hire the most qualified candidate by dumb luck even when merit isn't the criterion the choice is based on.

Derec has often couched his criticism of people in terms of their race, gender, and religion. I don’t recall him commenting on someone’s sexual orientation. A notable example was his repeated characterization of Kamala Harris as a DEI hire. Calling someone a DEI hire does say that they are not as qualified as white men.

You're mixing up characteristics of individuals with statistical averages. If you pick a basketball player by having candidates shoot hoops and picking the one who scores the most baskets, you'll typically get a better player than if you pick one by having the candidates draw straws. But there are no guaranteed in life -- the best player might draw the short straw and the third best player might have a good day during the test. Hiring on the basis of DEI is like hiring by drawing straws or hiring alphabetically or any other selection method not based on measuring skills -- on average you'll get less skilled people that way. But individuals aren't averages.

There are very very few hiring decisions that are based on the measurement of skills, because both the definitions and measurements of skills are, at best, imprecise.. Really, your example is utopian fluff.

 

[Toni]

Everyone else is a DEI hire and therefore unqualified.

...
And second, when have you ever seen Derec say all DEI hires are unqualified? An employer making a DEI choice can sometimes hire the most qualified candidate by dumb luck even when merit isn't the criterion the choice is based on.

Derec has often couched his criticism of people in terms of their race, gender, and religion. I don’t recall him commenting on someone’s sexual orientation. A notable example was his repeated characterization of Kamala Harris as a DEI hire. Calling someone a DEI hire does say that they are not as qualified as white men.

You're mixing up characteristics of individuals with statistical averages. If you pick a basketball player by having candidates shoot hoops and picking the one who scores the most baskets, you'll typically get a better player than if you pick one by having the candidates draw straws. But there are no guaranteed in life -- the best player might draw the short straw and the third best player might have a good day during the test. Hiring on the basis of DEI is like hiring by drawing straws or hiring alphabetically or any other selection method not based on measuring skills -- on average you'll get less skilled people that way. But individuals aren't averages.

There are very very few hiring decisions that are based on the measurement of skills, because both the definitions and measurements of skills are, at best, imprecise.. Really, your example is utopian fluff.

I think that many hiring decisions ARE made based on some evaluation of skills and knowledge but those are not the entire criteria. No matter how much some may not like it, it IS important that anyone hired fit in well with the other employees or else bring qualities and skills to enhance the workplace. No matter how skilled and knowledgeable a teacher is, if they are an asshole, they are unlikely to be effective in the classroom, or at least if they are an asshole in the classroom that is true. If they are an asshole outside of the classroom, they will find it difficult to be as effective as they might be. This is true of most doctors, nurses, plumbers, electricians, restaurant workers, anyone in the service industry, etc. Like it or not, human beings are social animals. Likewise there are some careers/jobs that are best for people who do well working alone, or at least independently. It is a good thing that there are many different types of people, with many different talents and skills and personalities to bring to the table.

 

[Axulus]

How are "biological woman" and "biological sex" defined according to this ruling? There are people with XX chromosomes that have penises, for example, or have XY chromosomes with a vagina.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Everyone else is a DEI hire and therefore unqualified.

...
And second, when have you ever seen Derec say all DEI hires are unqualified? An employer making a DEI choice can sometimes hire the most qualified candidate by dumb luck even when merit isn't the criterion the choice is based on.

Derec has often couched his criticism of people in terms of their race, gender, and religion. I don’t recall him commenting on someone’s sexual orientation. A notable example was his repeated characterization of Kamala Harris as a DEI hire. Calling someone a DEI hire does say that they are not as qualified as white men.

You're mixing up characteristics of individuals with statistical averages. If you pick a basketball player by having candidates shoot hoops and picking the one who scores the most baskets, you'll typically get a better player than if you pick one by having the candidates draw straws. But there are no guaranteed in life -- the best player might draw the short straw and the third best player might have a good day during the test. Hiring exclusively on the basis of DEI is like hiring by drawing straws or hiring alphabetically or any other selection method not based on measuring skills -- on average you'll get less skilled people that way. But individuals aren't averages.

FIFY.

 

[TSwizzle]

He has repeatedly called Kamala Harris a DEI hire.

We know Kamala was a DEI hire because Brandon declared he was going to hire a black woman for VP. And boy, what a doozy pick. Just goes to show how catastrophic these stupid ideas can be.

 

[Toni]

Everyone else is a DEI hire and therefore unqualified.

...
And second, when have you ever seen Derec say all DEI hires are unqualified? An employer making a DEI choice can sometimes hire the most qualified candidate by dumb luck even when merit isn't the criterion the choice is based on.

Derec has often couched his criticism of people in terms of their race, gender, and religion. I don’t recall him commenting on someone’s sexual orientation. A notable example was his repeated characterization of Kamala Harris as a DEI hire. Calling someone a DEI hire does say that they are not as qualified as white men.

You're mixing up characteristics of individuals with statistical averages. If you pick a basketball player by having candidates shoot hoops and picking the one who scores the most baskets, you'll typically get a better player than if you pick one by having the candidates draw straws. But there are no guaranteed in life -- the best player might draw the short straw and the third best player might have a good day during the test. Hiring on the basis of DEI is like hiring by drawing straws or hiring alphabetically or any other selection method not based on measuring skills -- on average you'll get less skilled people that way. But individuals aren't averages.

(Of course, Vice Presidents are normally chosen by selection methods not based on measuring skills. Usually it's appeal to some demographic the Presidential candidate thinks will help win the election -- so there's little reason to think DEI hires will be any worse on average than other VPs. For that matter, I can only think of one VP in living memory who was chosen for his skill set, and we saw how badly that worked out.)

Even a basketball player who can make the most baskets may not be the best person for a particular opening on a team. A ball hog is eventually resented if they insist on scoring all the shots and even a player in their prime can be injured. It’s a team sport and players need to be able to support one another and not expect to shine all the time. And so it is in life.

 

[Bomb#20]

How are "biological woman" and "biological sex" defined according to this ruling? There are people with XX chromosomes that have penises, for example, or have XY chromosomes with a vagina.

You'd have to track down the actual text of the ruling to be sure, but based on how legal decisions are usually constructed, the court almost certainly didn't address that distinction. Since, as a practical matter, whether a person has a penis or vagina is a matter of public knowledge and whether he or she has a Y chromosome is not, failing to address the distinction is operationally equivalent to ruling that people with vaginas are eligible for the female-reserved positions and people with penises are not. If at some point in the future someone with XX chromosomes and a penis wants one of the positions and sues to get it, a future court will revisit the question at that time.

 

[Bomb#20]

You're mixing up characteristics of individuals with statistical averages. If you pick a basketball player by having candidates shoot hoops and picking the one who scores the most baskets, you'll typically get a better player than if you pick one by having the candidates draw straws. But there are no guaranteed in life -- the best player might draw the short straw and the third best player might have a good day during the test. Hiring exclusively on the basis of DEI is like hiring by drawing straws or hiring alphabetically or any other selection method not based on measuring skills -- on average you'll get less skilled people that way. But individuals aren't averages.

FIFY.

Fair point. Hiring partially on the basis of DEI is like hiring partially based on skills and partially by drawing straws or hiring alphabetically or any other selection method not based on measuring skills. If you pick a basketball player by having candidates shoot hoops and having the half who score the most baskets draw straws, you'll typically get a better player than if you pick one by having all the candidates draw straws, but not as good a player as if you just picked the one who scored the most baskets.

 

[Bomb#20]

Everyone else is a DEI hire and therefore unqualified.

...
And second, when have you ever seen Derec say all DEI hires are unqualified? An employer making a DEI choice can sometimes hire the most qualified candidate by dumb luck even when merit isn't the criterion the choice is based on.

Derec has often couched his criticism of people in terms of their race, gender, and religion. I don’t recall him commenting on someone’s sexual orientation. A notable example was his repeated characterization of Kamala Harris as a DEI hire. Calling someone a DEI hire does say that they are not as qualified as white men.

You're mixing up characteristics of individuals with statistical averages. If you pick a basketball player by having candidates shoot hoops and picking the one who scores the most baskets, you'll typically get a better player than if you pick one by having the candidates draw straws. But there are no guaranteed in life -- the best player might draw the short straw and the third best player might have a good day during the test. Hiring on the basis of DEI is like hiring by drawing straws or hiring alphabetically or any other selection method not based on measuring skills -- on average you'll get less skilled people that way. But individuals aren't averages.

(Of course, Vice Presidents are normally chosen by selection methods not based on measuring skills. Usually it's appeal to some demographic the Presidential candidate thinks will help win the election -- so there's little reason to think DEI hires will be any worse on average than other VPs. For that matter, I can only think of one VP in living memory who was chosen for his skill set, and we saw how badly that worked out.)

No, I was talking about Derec’s characterization of people in certain positions previously ( and currently) which exclusively went to white males who do not belong to the category white male. He has repeatedly called Kamala Harris a DEI hire.

And? Derec doesn't call her that because she's not a white male. He calls her that because Biden decided he'd choose a black woman before he decided to choose her. His implication isn't that she's likely to be less qualified than someone else would have been because she's a black woman; his implication is that she's likely to be less qualified than someone else would have been because she isn't the winner of a qualifications contest.

(Which, as noted upthread, is a dubious inference to draw, because if Biden hadn't applied DEI he'd have probably applied some other non-qualification method instead, so a hypothetical alternate pick wouldn't have been the winner of a qualifications contest either. But that isn't the point -- I'm not saying Derec's reasoning is sound; I'm saying ZH's and your criticism of him was based on a misunderstanding. I think Derec has criticized DEI so often he lost track of which criticisms apply to the candidate and which to the employer -- it would have been perfectly fair to criticize Biden for applying DEI without criticizing Harris for benefitting from it. Harris carried out her one and only task just as competently as any alternative pick would have: helping Biden win in 2020.)

 

[Toni]

Everyone else is a DEI hire and therefore unqualified.

...
And second, when have you ever seen Derec say all DEI hires are unqualified? An employer making a DEI choice can sometimes hire the most qualified candidate by dumb luck even when merit isn't the criterion the choice is based on.

Derec has often couched his criticism of people in terms of their race, gender, and religion. I don’t recall him commenting on someone’s sexual orientation. A notable example was his repeated characterization of Kamala Harris as a DEI hire. Calling someone a DEI hire does say that they are not as qualified as white men.

You're mixing up characteristics of individuals with statistical averages. If you pick a basketball player by having candidates shoot hoops and picking the one who scores the most baskets, you'll typically get a better player than if you pick one by having the candidates draw straws. But there are no guaranteed in life -- the best player might draw the short straw and the third best player might have a good day during the test. Hiring on the basis of DEI is like hiring by drawing straws or hiring alphabetically or any other selection method not based on measuring skills -- on average you'll get less skilled people that way. But individuals aren't averages.

(Of course, Vice Presidents are normally chosen by selection methods not based on measuring skills. Usually it's appeal to some demographic the Presidential candidate thinks will help win the election -- so there's little reason to think DEI hires will be any worse on average than other VPs. For that matter, I can only think of one VP in living memory who was chosen for his skill set, and we saw how badly that worked out.)

No, I was talking about Derec’s characterization of people in certain positions previously ( and currently) which exclusively went to white males who do not belong to the category white male. He has repeatedly called Kamala Harris a DEI hire.

And? Derec doesn't call her that because she's not a white male. He calls her that because Biden decided he'd choose a black woman before he decided to choose her. His implication isn't that she's likely to be less qualified than someone else would have been because she's a black woman; his implication is that she's likely to be less qualified than someone else would have been because she isn't the winner of a qualifications contest.

(Which, as noted upthread, is a dubious inference to draw, because if Biden hadn't applied DEI he'd have probably applied some other non-qualification method instead, so a hypothetical alternate pick wouldn't have been the winner of a qualifications contest either. But that isn't the point -- I'm not saying Derec's reasoning is sound; I'm saying ZH's and your criticism of him was based on a misunderstanding. I think Derec has criticized DEI so often he lost track of which criticisms apply to the candidate and which to the employer -- it would have been perfectly fair to criticize Biden for applying DEI without criticizing Harris for benefitting from it. Harris carried out her one and only task just as competently as any alternative pick would have: helping Biden win in 2020.)

Actually, Derec HAS implied that Harris is less qualified than a number of other candidates who are white and male. No one, especially Derec, ever bats an eyelash at a white male being chosen: it is assumed that he earned all of his qualifications on his own merits while anyone who is not a white male is assumed to have earned their qualifications only because of Affirmative Action or DEI policies, not because they are actually well qualified. Derec further insults Harris because once upon a time, she had a romantic relationship with a man of some power and influence. Frequently in Derec's posts, he not only highlights but harps upon an individuals race and or gender and religion, if it is Islam rather than any qualifications or evidence of guilt or innocence.

Yes, Biden DID state he wanted to choose a black woman as his running mate. For more than 200 years, it was simply understood that a white male would be POTUS and another white male would be VP and the same applied to every high office in the land and much of the world. Men have always been the DEI hires: they were specifically in the candidate pool because they were white and male, anything else being entirely disqualifying. So someone actually said they were deliberately looking outside that particular pool. Oh, the horrors!!

It is not as though there were no or only one or two black women who were highly qualified and had sufficient national recognition to be VP. But for bigots, actually saying outloud that someone is looking for someone who is something other than white and male is evidence of discrimination against white males, despite the fact that white males have only had each other to compete against for the last hundreds of years.

 

[Bomb#20]

You're mixing up characteristics of individuals with statistical averages. If you pick a basketball player by having candidates shoot hoops and picking the one who scores the most baskets, you'll typically get a better player than if you pick one by having the candidates draw straws. But there are no guaranteed in life -- the best player might draw the short straw and the third best player might have a good day during the test. Hiring on the basis of DEI is like hiring by drawing straws or hiring alphabetically or any other selection method not based on measuring skills -- on average you'll get less skilled people that way. But individuals aren't averages.

Even a basketball player who can make the most baskets may not be the best person for a particular opening on a team. A ball hog is eventually resented if they insist on scoring all the shots and even a player in their prime can be injured. It’s a team sport and players need to be able to support one another and not expect to shine all the time. And so it is in life.

This is true, but it doesn't affect the reasoning unless either (a) you have a way to measure ball-hogging tendencies you're going to use instead of baskets, or (b) you have reason to believe that people who score more baskets tend to be ball-hogs. If ball-hogging and baskets are uncorrelated then on average you'll still get better players by choosing the guy with the highest percentage than if you choose by drawing straws.

 

[ZiprHead]

And? Derec doesn't call her that because she's not a white male. He calls her that because Biden decided he'd choose a black woman before he decided to choose her. His implication isn't that she's likely to be less qualified than someone else would have been because she's a black woman; his implication is that she's likely to be less qualified than someone else would have been because she isn't the winner of a qualifications contest.

(Which, as noted upthread, is a dubious inference to draw, because if Biden hadn't applied DEI he'd have probably applied some other non-qualification method instead, so a hypothetical alternate pick wouldn't have been the winner of a qualifications contest either. But that isn't the point -- I'm not saying Derec's reasoning is sound; I'm saying ZH's and your criticism of him was based on a misunderstanding. I think Derec has criticized DEI so often he lost track of which criticisms apply to the candidate and which to the employer -- it would have been perfectly fair to criticize Biden for applying DEI without criticizing Harris for benefitting from it. Harris carried out her one and only task just as competently as any alternative pick would have: helping Biden win in 2020.)

Derek literally accused Harris of sleeping her way to the top, using a very insulting and misogynistic slur.

 

[Derec]

Derek literally accused Harris of sleeping her way to the top,

Not to the top. But she did get her start in politics because her sugar daddy put her on a couple of state boards.

using a very insulting and misogynistic slur.

I am not sure which "slur" you have in mind, but I am sure it is very mild compared to what is bandied about regularly about male politicians.

 

[bilby]

I am not sure which "slur" you have in mind