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

[seanie]

Not at all. The analogy is dreadful.

Firstly, I don’t recall anyone arguing against gay rights claiming that gay people were factually mistaken: that they thought they were same sex attracted but they weren’t.

Has anyone ever said that?

People opposed to gay rights didn’t think those people weren’t gay, just that they shouldn’t be. It was a moral question, not a factual one.

That’s the exact opposite of the trans issue.

 

[seanie]

The issue at hand isn’t akin to those opposed to gay rights. How a person considers themself, how they present, dress, the name they wish to go by, is a personal matter. Men identifying as women is fine, for the most part, but that doesn’t make them women. Their sex is still male, which is an objective, material fact.

The issue is, is that there are some circumstances where a person’s actual sex does legitimately matter to other people, who also have rights.

So, as a matter of policy and law, trans women should be excluded from female only spaces, not for being trans, but for being male.

 

[TomC]

Speaking as a gay male naturist,

Why am I required to wear pants in my own yard? It's a beautiful day, sunny and warm. The reason I do is the irrational people who passed laws about public nudity, and included my own yard! But apparently this is very important, so there's laws on the subject.

What makes it unreasonable for me to think that women have the right to choose?
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Not at all. The analogy is dreadful.

Firstly, I don’t recall anyone arguing against gay rights claiming that gay people were factually mistaken: that they thought they were same sex attracted but they weren’t.

Then you know literally nothing at all about the history of gay rights, so what's our starting point here?

 

[Politesse]

The issue at hand isn’t akin to those opposed to gay rights. How a person considers themself, how they present, dress, the name they wish to go by, is a personal matter. Men identifying as women is fine, for the most part, but that doesn’t make them women. Their sex is still male, which is an objective, material fact.

The issue is, is that there are some circumstances where a person’s actual sex does legitimately matter to other people, who also have rights.

So, as a matter of policy and law, trans women should be excluded from female only spaces, not for being trans, but for being male.

You should have rights that maximize your own freedoms. Not "rights" to take liberties away from other people, unless absolutely necessary for social stability.

 

[Politesse]

Speaking as a gay male naturist,

Why am I required to wear pants in my own yard? It's a beautiful day, sunny and warm. The reason I do is the irrational people who passed laws about public nudity, and included my own yard! But apparently this is very important, so there's laws on the subject.

What makes it unreasonable for me to think that women have the right to choose?
Tom

Backing the anti-gay faction because they currently claim about half the time not to be as anti-gay anymore is incredibly, mind-numbingly stupid in my opinion. When the trans folks are all in mental asylums or Salvadorean work camps, they aren't going to give you a free pass just because you helped them take down some of the other minorities first. You'll be the next and most obvious target. Well, you'll probably be dead of old age. But I'll be the next target, and so will seanie's daughter. If you can't be arsed to care about us, you are a part of something wicked, but yeah, I guess that won't matter to you. Throw away the country if you won't be using it I guess.

 

[Politesse]

Their sex is still male, which is an objective, material fact.

Which you can present no objective, material evidence for. What an odd condition for an objective, material fact to be in!

 

[seanie]

Trans women have to be male in the first place. It’s a prerequisite.

 

[Politesse]

The reference to the gazillion women I've known throughout the years as "hypothetical" was also pretty galling.
Tom

I meant hypothetical not in the sense that she herself was a hypothetical person, but that her opinion on intersex and trans rights is purely hypothetical. You weren't speaking on her behalf over an issue on which her actual opinion is known to you. What she wants to have done to trans people is hypothetical, and we know it only accroding to your hypothesis. You. The man. Telling us oh so authoritatively what women think, want, and need. You know better than she does, apparently, whether or not her desire for privacy adds up to a desire to have the government take away her own and others freedom of choice. It may be that this sad woman peeing in her car because an authoritarian force gave her no space to do it more comfortably, may not want that problem to be "solved" by forcing one of her trans sisters to face the same horrible conundrum that she did. Maybe she has empathy. Maybe she has logic. In my experience, both qualities are generally easier to find in women than in men by a slight margin.

But she will never get the chance to say it. You, TomC, the man, know what she really thinks and are her sole representative in this forum discussion. A man has spoken. She has been rendered a tool, not a person.

 

[Politesse]

Trans women have to be male in the first place. It’s a prerequisite.

More suppositions, still no evidence. What a funny flavor "objective" truths come in these days!

 

[seanie]

Then what is “trans” indicating when you use the term trans woman?

Can biological females be trans women?

 

[Politesse]

Then what is “trans” indicating when you use the term trans woman?

Can biological females be trans women?

That is a rhetorical argument, not evidence.

 

[seanie]

No, they’re questions.

Can you answer them?

 

[ZiprHead]

Not at all. The analogy is dreadful.

Firstly, I don’t recall anyone arguing against gay rights claiming that gay people were factually mistaken: that they thought they were same sex attracted but they weren’t.

Has anyone ever said that?

Yes. Lots.

People opposed to gay rights didn’t think those people weren’t gay, just that they shouldn’t be. It was a moral question, not a factual one.

That’s the exact opposite of the trans issue.

Explain the difference.

The scientific basis for same sex attection is also tied to gender dysphoria. But you deny that.

 

[laughing dog]

There's nothing like an argument from authority to establish one's commitment to the scientific method.

There's nothing like dismissing any and all arguments made by actual scientists, to make it plain that you are hawking pseudoscience.

You are fractally wrong.

1. What I dismissed contained no arguments, just an ideological slogan. How many times does it need to be pointed out that an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition? "Biological sex is a label assigned by a medical professional at birth based on physical characteristics (genitalia) and other biological determinants." does not, by any stretch of the imagination, qualify. And as ideological slogans go, it is more imbecilic than average, for reasons I pointed out.

Your example of dinosaurs sets the gold standard for imbecilic arguments. Until you can provide actual scientific evidence that dinosaurs actually thought in terms of different sexes, you are simply spouting nonsense.

2. What I dismissed was not promulgated by actual scientists. As you said, the source is the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. They're doctors, not scientists.

This is desperate pedantry. Doctors apply science.

 

[WAB]

There's nothing like an argument from authority to establish one's commitment to the scientific method.

There's nothing like dismissing any and all arguments made by actual scientists, to make it plain that you are hawking pseudoscience.

You are fractally wrong.

1. What I dismissed contained no arguments, just an ideological slogan. How many times does it need to be pointed out that an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition? "Biological sex is a label assigned by a medical professional at birth based on physical characteristics (genitalia) and other biological determinants." does not, by any stretch of the imagination, qualify. And as ideological slogans go, it is more imbecilic than average, for reasons I pointed out.

Your example of dinosaurs sets the gold standard for imbecilic arguments. Until you can provide actual scientific evidence that dinosaurs actually thought in terms of different sexes, you are simply spouting nonsense.

I think you misunderstood the analogy. Its not that dinosaurs thought anything at all about sex, only that they had a sex, ie, sex is not assigned at birth, it's present and recognized and recorded, albeit with various levels of complete accuracy (not with respect to dinosaurs, but people).

To me, to "assign" a sex would mean to somehow cause or in someway participate in what that sex is.

 

[seanie]

Explain the difference.

The scientific basis for same sex attection is also tied to gender dysphoria. But you deny that.

I just did.

Most of those who objected to gay rights did so because they considered it immoral, unnatural, offensive etc. it wasn’t a dispute about whether people were gay or were simply mistaken about being gay.

I don’t find people identifying as or considering themselves to be the sex they’re not immoral, unnatural or offensive. People should live in a way that best suits themselves, for the most part. But other people have rights too, and sometimes a person’s sex legitimately matters. Certainly not in al areas of everyday life, but still quite often.

Whether there is a biological basis for a trans identity is neither here nor there (are you suggesting g medical screening to establish the “true trans”?).

Trans women’s sex is male.

As such, they should be excluded along with other males, when females require a single sex space.

 

[seanie]

And what do you mean by “sex” when you say “same sex attraction”?

Define your terms.

 

[laughing dog]

There's nothing like an argument from authority to establish one's commitment to the scientific method.

There's nothing like dismissing any and all arguments made by actual scientists, to make it plain that you are hawking pseudoscience.

You are fractally wrong.

1. What I dismissed contained no arguments, just an ideological slogan. How many times does it need to be pointed out that an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition? "Biological sex is a label assigned by a medical professional at birth based on physical characteristics (genitalia) and other biological determinants." does not, by any stretch of the imagination, qualify. And as ideological slogans go, it is more imbecilic than average, for reasons I pointed out.

Your example of dinosaurs sets the gold standard for imbecilic arguments. Until you can provide actual scientific evidence that dinosaurs actually thought in terms of different sexes, you are simply spouting nonsense.

I think you misunderstood the analogy. Its not that dinosaurs thought anything at all about sex, only that they had a sex, ie, sex is not assigned at birth, it's present and recognized and recorded, albeit with various levels of complete accuracy (not with respect to dinosaurs, but people).

To me, to "assign" a sex would mean to somehow cause or in someway participate in what that sex is.

Assign can mean “label”. Hence the pedantic digression about “label makers”. All of which is mind-numbing pedantic pointlessness with regards to the actual discussion about the possible human sexes.

 

[seanie]

Sex is determined at fertilisation, and is binary. There are only two developmental pathways, Müllerian or Wolffian, female and male.