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

[laughing dog]

And there you go again, wanting everything tied up into nice little, easy for you to understand, boxes with pretty pink or blue bows on them.

You’re the one introducing the stereotypes of pink and blue.

If you can’t define what you mean by the terms you’re using, just admit it and fuck off.

Because you’re not a serious person.

Define what you mean by “serious person”.

Be specific.

 

[laughing dog]

You’re almost certainly right.

But by “complete physical transformation” he might mean tapping your heels together three times and saying “I consider myself a woman, I consider myself a woman, I consider myself a woman…”

That’s idiotic, but par for your course.

 

[laughing dog]

Nothing. Just like there is nothing mysterious about the concept of "complete physical transformation".

Well it remains mysterious as long as you refuse to explain what you mean by it.

I don't think continuing to press him is going anywhere -- ld has an unlimited capacity for bickering. I suggest we just all presume that by "complete physical transformation" he means the obvious: full-blown sex-change operation, breast implants, electrolysis, and ongoing estrogen treatments. If that's wrong he can correct us if he feels like it; until then, silence means consent.

Wrong, I was avoiding bickering.

 

[TomC]

And there you go again, wanting everything tied up into nice little, easy for you to understand, boxes with pretty pink or blue bows on them.

You’re the one introducing the stereotypes of pink and blue.

If you can’t define what you mean by the terms you’re using, just admit it and fuck off.

Because you’re not a serious person.

Define what you mean by “serious person”.

Be specific.

That’s idiotic, but par for your course.

Tom

 

[seanie]

Now you're just being obtuse.

Repeatedly asking the same simple-minded questions over and over again is not any sort of intellectual argument.

Refusing to explain what you mean by the words you use, in a situation where the meaning of words is clearly contested, is being obtuse.

 

[seanie]

Define what you mean by “serious person”.

Be specific.

I’m using those words with their clear and obvious meaning.

 

[laughing dog]

Define what you mean by “serious person”.

Be specific.

I’m using those words with their clear and obvious meaning.

What do you mean by “clesr and obvious meaning”? Be specific.
Remember refusing to explain what you mean by the words you use where the meaning of the words is contested is being obtuse ( your post 1466).

 

[laughing dog]

And there you go again, wanting everything tied up into nice little, easy for you to understand, boxes with pretty pink or blue bows on them.

You’re the one introducing the stereotypes of pink and blue.

If you can’t define what you mean by the terms you’re using, just admit it and fuck off.

Because you’re not a serious person.

Define what you mean by “serious person”.

Be specific.

That’s idiotic, but par for your course.

Tom

The irony is truly overwhelming. You triple bogeyed that flailure.

 

[Toni]

You already made it crystal clear that "a complete physical transformation" was not in your list of criteria for whether a man should be viewed and treated as a woman.

Calling trans women men is not a good faith attempt to resolve the conflict of interests when it comes to privacy and safety and the perceptions of privacy and safety which are roots in large part to the history of violence and sexual violence most commonly —but not exclusively— inflicted on girls and females by men and boys.

Of course it isn't. What's your point? Calling so-called "trans women" "men" is a good faith attempt -- a successful attempt -- to speak the literal truth. Are you proposing that literal truth is the wrong thing to be making a good faith attempt at? Are you proposing that speakers have a duty to instead commit pious fraud? ... If you want me to say transwomen are women, explain why they're women; don't explain the social benefits of pretending they're women.

But it’s not the literal truth. Genetically, there is change that drives the apparently male XY or female XX body to feel differently. For almost all people, what is between their legs matches their genetics and how they and the world perceives them. But not for everybody. For a small percentage of people, a shift of a gene makes the difference in how they perceive themselves.

What makes you think any of that has any bearing on whether transwomen are in point of fact women or men? What evidence do you have that "how they perceive themselves" is one of the criteria for "woman" and "man"?

If you have evidence that there's a gene for transgenderism, that's interesting in its own right. It's surprising; I'm skeptical that transgenderism is even the sort of thing there could be a gene for -- I suspect there are a lot of different underlying psychological conditions that are lumped together under that name because they have somewhat similar symptoms. So it would be unsurprising if some cases were genetic, some caused by environment in utero, some by early childhood environment, and some by environment during adolescence. If you wish to share a genetic study you've seen, go for it. But, and it's a big but, a gene for transgenderism proves zilch about whether transwomen are men or women. We already know it has physical causes, since everything does. What the heck difference does it make whether some "pregnant person" is convinced she's a man because some gene says GATTACA instead of GATATCA or because she got dosed with some extra testosterone when she was a 14-week fetus? Believing doesn't make things so.

Are you familiar with the "God Gene" hypothesis? The idea is that people can be made more or less likely to believe in God by a genetic variation. Never mind that the evidence is flimsy -- suppose it's a real effect. Suppose there really is a gene that makes a person believe in God. Well, so what? You wouldn't quote the study at me and claim scientists proved there's a God, would you? Of course you wouldn't. Because believing doesn't make things so. All the scientists would have proven is they can explain why somebody believes there's a God. Likewise, if you can cite a study that shows genetically, there is change that drives the apparently male XY body to feel differently, all the scientists proved is they can explain why he believes he's a woman. They haven't shown he isn't just as wrong about that as a Christian is about whether there's a God. People are often wrong.

Y’all are acting as those this is very trivial

Your argument for why calling trans women men is not the literal truth was an epic fail, for reasons that are, in point of fact, trivial. "Believing doesn't make things so." isn't exactly rocket science. If you want to try to construct a better argument, knock yourself out.

or pretend.

Hey, I make no claim as to whether any gender-ideology advocate who insists "Transwomen are women." really believes it or is pretending. As with any other wacko dogma, I expect some of them are true believers, some are just saying it to virtue signal, some are saying it because they sincerely imagine getting others to generally accept it will make for a better world, and some are saying it because they really really want to believe it, because their friends convinced them you have to believe it to be a good person and they don't want to be unworthy of their friends so they very much want to be a good person. Pascal said if you want to believe in God based on his Wager but you can't make yourself, go through the motions enough and eventually belief will come. Pascal was a rubbish philosopher but a great psychologist.

No, when I wrote "pretend" I wasn't accusing you of pretending; I was accusing you of trying to get me to pretend. Whether you believe it when you say it is between you and your programming; but if I were to say it I'd be pretending, because I know it isn't true even if you don't. When you wrote "Calling trans women men is not a good faith attempt to resolve the conflict of interests when it comes to privacy and safety and <yada yada>", that was an appeal for me to say whether they're men or women based on strategic consideration of consequences rather than based on truth, i.e., an appeal for me to pretend.

It is not. It is rooted in biology. It’s time to accept that.

And it's time for you to stop beating your wife. Of course transgenderism is rooted in biology. Duh! Everything people do is rooted in biology! You have no grounds for insinuating that I don't "accept that".

FFS, I’m on vacation with spotty internet access and you can do your own fucking time on Google.

Yes, there is a strong genetic component to being transgender.

 

[seanie]

There’s

Define what you mean by “serious person”.

Be specific.

I’m using those words with their clear and obvious meaning.

What do you mean by “clesr and obvious meaning”? Be specific.
Remember refusing to explain what you mean by the words you use where the meaning of the words is contested is being obtuse ( your post 1466).

There’s nothing vague or opaque about my words.

In contrast your claim of a “complete physical transformation” begs several questions.

 

[laughing dog]

There’s

Define what you mean by “serious person”.

Be specific.

I’m using those words with their clear and obvious meaning.

What do you mean by “clesr and obvious meaning”? Be specific.
Remember refusing to explain what you mean by the words you use where the meaning of the words is contested is being obtuse ( your post 1466).

There’s nothing vague or opaque about my words.

In contrast your claim of a “complete physical transformation” begs several questions.

Perhaps to the terminally obtuse. After all, Bomb #20 got it with no effort.

Are you unable or unwilling to define what you mean by “serious person” or “clear and obvious meaning”? If this is frustrating and/or annoying for you, now you know how it is for those with whom you disagree.

 

[seanie]

“Complete physical transformation” raises obvious questions.

What’s the differences or differences between a complete and incomplete physical transformation? What’s key? Which physical characteristics have to be transformed? Which don’t?

These questions go to what you mean by the phrase you’ve used. And you’ve refused to explain.

 

[seanie]

Pretending not to undestined what is meant to be conveyed by the term “serious person”, is just performative stupidity.

 

[Toni]

Pretending not to undestined what is meant to be conveyed by the term “serious person”, is just performative stupidity.

You’re the expert.

 

[seanie]

Well, I know what “both” means.

So there’s that.

 

[Bomb#20]

Of course it isn't. What's your point? Calling so-called "trans women" "men" is a good faith attempt -- a successful attempt -- to speak the literal truth. ...

But it’s not the literal truth. Genetically, there is change that drives the apparently male XY or female XX body to feel differently. For almost all people, what is between their legs matches their genetics and how they and the world perceives them. But not for everybody. For a small percentage of people, a shift of a gene makes the difference in how they perceive themselves.

What makes you think any of that has any bearing on whether transwomen are in point of fact women or men? What evidence do you have that "how they perceive themselves" is one of the criteria for "woman" and "man"?

If you have evidence that there's a gene for transgenderism, that's interesting in its own right. It's surprising; I'm skeptical that transgenderism is even the sort of thing there could be a gene for -- I suspect there are a lot of different underlying psychological conditions that are lumped together under that name because they have somewhat similar symptoms. So it would be unsurprising if some cases were genetic, some caused by environment in utero, some by early childhood environment, and some by environment during adolescence. If you wish to share a genetic study you've seen, go for it. But, and it's a big but, a gene for transgenderism proves zilch about whether transwomen are men or women. We already know it has physical causes, since everything does. What the heck difference does it make whether some "pregnant person" is convinced she's a man because some gene says GATTACA instead of GATATCA or because she got dosed with some extra testosterone when she was a 14-week fetus? Believing doesn't make things so.

Are you familiar with the "God Gene" hypothesis? The idea is that people can be made more or less likely to believe in God by a genetic variation. Never mind that the evidence is flimsy -- suppose it's a real effect. Suppose there really is a gene that makes a person believe in God. Well, so what? You wouldn't quote the study at me and claim scientists proved there's a God, would you? Of course you wouldn't. Because believing doesn't make things so. All the scientists would have proven is they can explain why somebody believes there's a God. Likewise, if you can cite a study that shows genetically, there is change that drives the apparently male XY body to feel differently, all the scientists proved is they can explain why he believes he's a woman. They haven't shown he isn't just as wrong about that as a Christian is about whether there's a God. People are often wrong.
...

It is not. It is rooted in biology. It’s time to accept that.

And it's time for you to stop beating your wife. Of course transgenderism is rooted in biology. Duh! Everything people do is rooted in biology! You have no grounds for insinuating that I don't "accept that".

FFS, I’m on vacation with spotty internet access and you can do your own <expletive deleted> time on Google.

Yes, there is a strong genetic component to being transgender.

Why did you write that? I did not ask you to do any time on Google for me. I did not ask you for evidence that there is a strong genetic component to being transgender. I don't believe for a second that there's some part of "If you wish" you don't understand. You are once again trying to falsely portray me as not accepting that being transgender is rooted in biology, while you're ducking every single question I actually did ask you. Recognizing questions is not a hard problem -- they're the sentences with question marks on the ends. None of the questions I asked you require any Googling on your part. They only require you to think. Here they are again:

1. What makes you think any of that has any bearing on whether transwomen are in point of fact women or men?

2. What evidence do you have that "how they perceive themselves" is one of the criteria for "woman" and "man"?

3. What the heck difference does it make whether some "pregnant person" is convinced she's a man because some gene says GATTACA instead of GATATCA or because she got dosed with some extra testosterone when she was a 14-week fetus?

4. Are you familiar with the "God Gene" hypothesis?

5. Suppose there really is a gene that makes a person believe in God. Well, so what?

6. You wouldn't quote the study at me and claim scientists proved there's a God, would you?​

If thinking about those is too much of a demand on you, here, I'll answer five of them for you. 1. Ideology. 2. None. 3. None. 5. It doesn't matter. 6. No you wouldn't. I can't answer 4 for you but we can skip that one.

Since a gene for transgenderism proves zilch about whether transwomen are men or women, your argument for why calling trans women men is not the literal truth was an epic fail. If you want to try to construct a better argument, I'm all ears.

 

[ZiprHead]

Now you're just being obtuse.

Repeatedly asking the same simple-minded questions over and over again is not any sort of intellectual argument.

Refusing to explain what you mean by the words you use, in a situation where the meaning of words is clearly contested, is being obtuse.

I’m using those words with their clear and obvious meaning.

 

[TomC]

Now you're just being obtuse.

Repeatedly asking the same simple-minded questions over and over again is not any sort of intellectual argument.

Refusing to explain what you mean by the words you use, in a situation where the meaning of words is clearly contested, is being obtuse.

I’m using those words with their clear and obvious meaning.

But you've not explained what you are referring to by "obtuse"!

Like me and Bomb, seanie grasps how the vernacular language is not all that precise. People often flip between sex, a physical characteristic, and gender, an abstract mental characteristic. When we ask for precision we get dumbassery, like "you know what I mean..." and ad homs.

It gets old.
Tom

 

[seanie]

Now you're just being obtuse.

Repeatedly asking the same simple-minded questions over and over again is not any sort of intellectual argument.

Refusing to explain what you mean by the words you use, in a situation where the meaning of words is clearly contested, is being obtuse.

I’m using those words with their clear and obvious meaning.

What part of “serious person” are you struggling with? Or are you struggling with what “both” means?

Happy to help.

In contrast, as I’ve pointed out, the phrase “complete physical transformation” begs some questions.

 

[seanie]

What physical transformations are required?

When are they complete or not complete?

What are the key factors in this transformation that makes men women?