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

[seanie]

Glue.

I think they’re smoking glue.

 

[Emily Lake]

attack by someone female-presenting but with male genitals in a women's room. Risk = zero. Yet a simple perusal of crime statistics should show you that the risk of a black woman is higher than the risk of a white woman. (Yeah, I know it's socioeconomic, not race. The woman in the restroom can't identify that so it's irrelevant.)

Risk=zero, does it?

Then why the extraordinarily high rate of sexual offending of trans women in prison?

Pretty sure that's sampling bias. The prison service is a lot more likely to know a trans prisoner is trans if he's a sex-offender than if he's a thief. The vast majority of trans prisoners surely keep their gender dysphoria under wraps.

Explain your reasoning to me, because I'm not sold. I'm not seeing how being a sex offender would make it more obvious that a person is trans. A sex offender is just as capable of keeping their dysphoria under wraps as a thief. And in those places where the law is such that prisoners end up housed based on their gender identity, it seems like a non-violent thief would have more motivation to share their gender identity with the staff, as it would remove them from a higher-risk area to a lower-risk area.

 

[Emily Lake]

You can campaign for alt-right causes and call yourself a left-wing atheist at the same time if you like, but that doesn't make the TERF position "liberal". Anyone who is campaigning to restrict the rights of a given class of people, rather than expanding the rights of citizens generally, is at least in that respect not a liberal by any common definition of the term.

As opposed to the activists campaigning to let any males who say magic words completely override a woman's right to consent to whether or not that man gets to expose himself to her, or see her naked? The ones who campaign to let any male who expresses gendery feels be house with female prisoners even if he's got the full wedding tackle AND a history of sexual assault? The ones who advocate that affirming men's feelings is more important than providing fair competition in sports? The ones who insist that a bepenised individual should be entitled by law to shower with women and girls because of how much he really wants to and if any woman objects she's just a bigot full of hate?

That's not liberal, that's misogynistic.

 

[seanie]

The registered sex offender, with multiple convictions for exposure, who walked around the Wi Spa female changing room, got away with it.

Case dismissed.

A male registered sex offender walking around a female changing room with his tadger on display?

Fine.

Because in California anyone who considers themselves a woman is one.

Even registered sex offenders.

How progressive.

 

[seanie]

You guys really don’t give much of a shit about women.

I mean the actual women.

Not the men pretending to be women.

You obviously care a lot about them.

 

[Emily Lake]

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!

Oooh, I'm a transwoman! I said so, so I get to be. The objective and observable fact that I have a female body, with a female reproductive system (what's left of it anyway), and a completely normal female karyotype shouldn't be a barrier to me identifying as a transwoman.

Anyone can be a transwoman if they want to be. Or a cisman.

Wait, I've changed my mind. I'm a cisman. It totally say so and words mean whatever the fuck I want them to mean in whatever way makes me right. So there. Logic!

Just as your previous post was not an empirical argument, this is not a logical one.

No shit, sherlock. It's intentionally illogical. As is the entire premise that males can be females if they just believe really really hard, and women should just shut the fuck up and "be kind", because failure to give men whatever they want is bigoted.

 

[Emily Lake]

Oh, I think they absolutely do understand that. Obviously they want to coercive power of the law to win for them what they know honest public debate never could.

Oh this is so rich I might have gained five pounds just reading it!

FFS, the entirety of this trans agenda was NOT advanced through public debate. It was slipped in behind the scenes by lobbyists inserting themselves into policy and intentionally keeping policy changes hidden from the public. At no point whatsoever did the public in CA or ME get to weigh in on whether or not male prisoners with dicks and balls should be housed with female prisoners just because those males said they feel all girly on the inside. At no fucking point did the public get to take part in a debate about whether entirely male bodied students should be competing against girls and taking their wins from them. At no fucking point did parents and the public get a say in whether or not male students with completely normal male anatomies should have the privilege of using their daughter's showers and changing rooms because of their gendery feelings. And in every instance where these policy changes have been FORCED on us against our will, there has been push back. And the more the public learns about the topic, the LESS supportive we are of letting men walk all over the rights and boundaries of women and girls because they have special feelings.

Whst do you mean by your not having a say? You have a say. You're saying things right now. No one is stopping you, far from it. Your brothers in arms have seized control of multiple governments to enforce your religious views on others without their consent, and your political actions have helped sweep far right factions into positions of enormous power and international influence. Downing Street, Rastrapati Bavan, Zhongnanhai, and the White House are on your side. The governor of California is signalling a backstabbing shift to your side. The media customarily portrays you as poor miserable martyrs for truth and your interlocutors as unhinged radicals with scary genitals. How much more of a "say" could you possibly have?

I'm not a republican, so you can shove this pile of idiotic well poisoning.

 

[Emily Lake]

The post above is a nice, apt little demonstration of a rhetorical strategy common among TERFS, Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, and other pseudoscience pushers, wherein one starts with a simple claim that no one actually disagrees with, but then piles on a spiral of increasingly implausible additions to it without offering any meaningful evidence to justify their gradual slide away from the materially demonstrable and towards a gleefully fictive world purely defined their ideological commitments.

Please show us a single example of a mammal or bird that has evolved a third sex. What gamete has their reproductive system evolved in tandem with? What does that reproductive system look like? How is that reproductive system defined, and what evolutionary role does that third sex play in reproduction for that species?

Until you can do this, kindly STFU with your pseudoscience dogma. Your imagined belief structure isn't reality.

Given that I have not claimed that "mammals and birds evolve third sexes", and I'm not aware that anyone has *, what relevance would such a proof have to our discussion?

* (unless one considers intersex conditions to be such, as I assume you do not, and that no amount of argumentation could ever make you agree with such a proposition)

Lol, fine. Show me a sperg then. And the reproductive system that has evolved in order to support the production of sperg.

Sex in anisogamous species is strictly binary. You coming in here to condescendingly assert that reality isn't real is getting really old. Especially since you can't seem to refrain from posting in a style that is snotty and rude and entirely lacks anything remotely resembling logic or reason.

 

[seanie]

ex

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!

Oooh, I'm a transwoman! I said so, so I get to be. The objective and observable fact that I have a female body, with a female reproductive system (what's left of it anyway), and a completely normal female karyotype shouldn't be a barrier to me identifying as a transwoman.

Anyone can be a transwoman if they want to be. Or a cisman.

Wait, I've changed my mind. I'm a cisman. It totally say so and words mean whatever the fuck I want them to mean in whatever way makes me right. So there. Logic!

Just as your previous post was not an empirical argument, this is not a logical one.

No shit, sherlock. It's intentionally illogical. As is the entire premise that males can be females if they just believe really really hard, and women should just shut the fuck up and "be kind", because failure to give men whatever they want is bigoted.

What Emily said.

 

[Emily Lake]

And do you know how we determine which trees are female, which are male, and which are both?

Large gametes and small gametes.

The binary of sex

Except that not all trees are binary. Trees are not always male or female.

Some trees are monoecious, meaning they have both male and female reproductive parts on the same tree. Others are dioecious, with separate male and female trees. Many trees are also hermaphroditic, meaning they have both male and female parts in each flower.

Elaboration:

• 
  
• Monoecious:
  Trees like oak, maple, and hickory have both male (staminate) and female (pistillate) flowers on the same tree.
  The same maples outside my house litter my yard with both pollen and with seeds, making them annoying and messy but they are also very beautiful.
  
  
• https://www.google.com/search?clien...CPezUOgwzI362HAIt1TSMDtrBG60n2J4wwr--Q&csui=3
• Dioecious:
  Trees like holly, persimmon, and gingko have separate male and female trees. Male trees produce pollen, and female trees produce fruits and seeds.
  Hermaphroditic:
  Trees like apple and pear have both male and female parts in each flower, allowing them to self-pollinate.
  
  

And yet, somehow, none of those trees have a third sex, and none have no sex.

Hermaphroditic and monoecious trees still have EXACTLY TWO SEXES. That they occur within the same individual is irrelevant - there are still two and only two gametes, and there are still two and only two reproductive systems.

Clownfish only have two sexes. They're sequential hermaphrodites that can change from male to female in specific situations (never the other way), but there is no third sex present within them.

You realize that trees are not in the same kingdom as human beings, right?

Do you know that at least 10 different species of animals actually do change sex, depending on a host of factors, including temperature and light?

Here’s a link: https://www.worldwildlife.org/stori...other-species-that-demonstrate-queer-behavior

Toni, did you actually read what I wrote? I mean, actually read rather than assuming what you think I mean? Because I literally referenced hermaphroditic species, and even specifically mention clownfish as sequential hermaphrodites. Like right there as a whole sentence.

The fact remains that in any anisogamous species, regardless of kingdom, there are two and only two sexes. A monoecious tree has two and only two sexes, that occur on the same plant in different locations. A hermaphroditic tree has two and only two sexes that occur within the same flower. There are still only two gametes, and two reproductive systems - regardless of whether those sexes occur within the same individual or not.

But humans are not hermaphroditic - we're neither simultaneous nor sequential hermaphrodites. Our sexes are determined in utero and are immutable. This is the case with ALL mammals and ALL birds. It's the case for the overwhelming majority of vertebrates, as the majority of chordates. No vertebrates have a more than two sexes, but some vertebrates and some chordates have only one sex.

 

[Arctish]

Sex and gender are two different things.

How your body was formed and what it can do is not the same thing as your identity. A father of two can have a female self identity. And they may have been "in the closet" about it for over 50 years because of their fears of rejection in a society that is hostile to transfolks.

So some men, really, really, believe that they are women.

Yeah, we know this.

But they’re not.

I really, really, really believe that I'm a progressive billionaire who is 6 feet tall. I really, truly, believe it.

If I had some way of testing your sincerity, via psychological screening, brain scans, or some other method, and it mattered for some reason, like I was deciding which prison you belong in, then I would be in favor of examining your claims in greater detail.**

But since I don't have psychic powers, testing would cost money, and I don't give a shit what you believe about yourself, then my response is "meh". Think what you like, identify as you wish, live and let live.

You can't get rid of sexism by enshrining it. Yes, there are differences between the sexes, and yes, they can affect important things like health care and careers, so we should be mindful of the differences and mitigate the negative social impacts as much as possible. But very little in our everyday lives needs to be about sex or gender. Most of it can be universal among human beings regardless of how they "present". I don't care which public restroom Conchita Wurst uses. I care that everyone in the restrooms is being polite and respectful towards each other.

**Not that I think billionaires should get special treatment in prison - y'all belong in the general population with the rest of us.

 

[seanie]

What about prisons?

What about sports?

What about about rape counselling services?

 

[seanie]

Should a male double rapist go to a woman’s prison if they consider themselves a woman?

Should a male who considers themselves female be allowed to compete in the female sports category?

Is it legitimate to have rape counselling sessions exclusively for females because they might be traumatised by the presence of males?

 

[Politesse]

The post above is a nice, apt little demonstration of a rhetorical strategy common among TERFS, Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, and other pseudoscience pushers, wherein one starts with a simple claim that no one actually disagrees with, but then piles on a spiral of increasingly implausible additions to it without offering any meaningful evidence to justify their gradual slide away from the materially demonstrable and towards a gleefully fictive world purely defined their ideological commitments.

Please show us a single example of a mammal or bird that has evolved a third sex. What gamete has their reproductive system evolved in tandem with? What does that reproductive system look like? How is that reproductive system defined, and what evolutionary role does that third sex play in reproduction for that species?

Until you can do this, kindly STFU with your pseudoscience dogma. Your imagined belief structure isn't reality.

Given that I have not claimed that "mammals and birds evolve third sexes", and I'm not aware that anyone has *, what relevance would such a proof have to our discussion?

* (unless one considers intersex conditions to be such, as I assume you do not, and that no amount of argumentation could ever make you agree with such a proposition)

Lol, fine. Show me a sperg then. And the reproductive system that has evolved in order to support the production of sperg.

Sex in anisogamous species is strictly binary. You coming in here to condescendingly assert that reality isn't real is getting really old. Especially since you can't seem to refrain from posting in a style that is snotty and rude and entirely lacks anything remotely resembling logic or reason.

Sperg? Do you mean the ableist slur, or am I missing something?

You're certainly not establishing much of a baseline for a "polite posting style".

 

[Emily Lake]

You are aware, of course, that for humans, at least, sex serves as more than a mere reproductive mechanism.

Meh. Potato, potahto. Sex serves as a reproductive mechanism - that's how it evolved, it's why it exists. We, as well as some other animals, have evolved other characteristics and behaviors that increase our likelihood to copulate and therefore to sexually reproduce successfully. Intercourse is (generally) pleasurable because those who enjoy intercouse have historically had a higher reproductive rate, and have thus passed on more of their copulation-enjoying genes. We have evolved a bonding instinct that is closely tied to the copulation, because it turns out that those how form pair bonds are more successful at raising their offspring to maturity - thus being more successful at continuing their gene lines.

In very, very, very recent history, we've come up with ways to hijack our own drives and to prevent pregnancy. That's great for us right now in a lot of ways... but it also means that a whole lot of gene lines go extinct as a result. Guess whose gene lines are going to be propagated and shape our future evolution?

Sexes in anisogamous species are 100% reproductive mechanisms. They're not always successful, but that's irrelevant.

And that gender and sex do not always align the way you expect or want them to.

I genuinely don't care about gender or gender identity. I do care about sex.

 

[Politesse]

Oh, I think they absolutely do understand that. Obviously they want to coercive power of the law to win for them what they know honest public debate never could.

Oh this is so rich I might have gained five pounds just reading it!

FFS, the entirety of this trans agenda was NOT advanced through public debate. It was slipped in behind the scenes by lobbyists inserting themselves into policy and intentionally keeping policy changes hidden from the public. At no point whatsoever did the public in CA or ME get to weigh in on whether or not male prisoners with dicks and balls should be housed with female prisoners just because those males said they feel all girly on the inside. At no fucking point did the public get to take part in a debate about whether entirely male bodied students should be competing against girls and taking their wins from them. At no fucking point did parents and the public get a say in whether or not male students with completely normal male anatomies should have the privilege of using their daughter's showers and changing rooms because of their gendery feelings. And in every instance where these policy changes have been FORCED on us against our will, there has been push back. And the more the public learns about the topic, the LESS supportive we are of letting men walk all over the rights and boundaries of women and girls because they have special feelings.

Whst do you mean by your not having a say? You have a say. You're saying things right now. No one is stopping you, far from it. Your brothers in arms have seized control of multiple governments to enforce your religious views on others without their consent, and your political actions have helped sweep far right factions into positions of enormous power and international influence. Downing Street, Rastrapati Bavan, Zhongnanhai, and the White House are on your side. The governor of California is signalling a backstabbing shift to your side. The media customarily portrays you as poor miserable martyrs for truth and your interlocutors as unhinged radicals with scary genitals. How much more of a "say" could you possibly have?

I'm not a republican, so you can shove this pile of idiotic well poisoning.

I meant the anti-trans bullshit lobby. Party is irrelevant. In the UK, I'm a republican (and proud of it, down with George!) but that has nothing to do with what we were talking about. Who has denied you any kind of a voice? Not only are you free to say whatever nonsense you like, you have the backing and open encouragement of some of the most powerful political forces on the planet. Pretending that you are somehow a persecuted minority is completely bonkers.

 

[Emily Lake]

It’s very straightforward 99.98% of the time.

There's that completely imagined number again...

It's not imagined. Only 0.02% of all babies are born with reproductive ambiguities. 99.98% are unambiguously male or female.

Just saying, "nuh uh it is real" doesn't make it so...

In the probably vain hope of laying your trumped-up charge that the number is made-up to rest once and for all, here again is the post where seanie cited his source:

View attachment 50518

And how is that number any less of an invention? They list out the most common forms of intersex conditions, then insist without justification that those should not be considered intersex condifions and that therefore the "real" number is lower than that which - they freely admit - the actual scholarly consensus maintains it to be. That isn't research, it's an opinion piece, and not especially convincing.

My thanks for pointing out this post though, I had missed it.

Intersex initially referred to conditions that presented with ambiguity of the reproductive system, generally genital ambiguity that made it difficult to classify an individual as male or female. Fausto-Sterling extended that term to mean anyone with any kind of DSD, regardless of whether there were any ambiguities at all. IIRC, her original work even included PCOS as "intersex" which is some absolute bullshit.

The reality is that the majority of DSDs do NOT have any ambiguity involved - people with Klinefelter or Turner are unambiguously male or female respectively.

Only ~0.02% of infants are born with ambiguous or unclear visual sexes.

 

[Emily Lake]

Belief trumping material reality?

Says a guy blindly defending Christian tradition for no logical reason...

Oh noes! The horrible christian tradition that males and females are different!

 

[laughing dog]

Really, urinals are unusable for 2 categories of unisex restroom clientele - women and the unabled. It seems an application of common sense to replace urinals with stalls to increase the availability to all.

I'll take the opposing view.

Think about it like self-service check out, or the express lane at the grocery store. If we end up with unisex restrooms, I think having at least a few urinals (depending on the number of facilities overall, of course) makes a lot of sense. Provide a partition, because some men are self-conscious too and I don't think men should be subjected to looky-loos either. But realistically I think the most efficient arrangement would be more stalls than in a typical male restroom, but still at least a couple of urinals. That lets bepenised people get in and out very fast, which keeps the whole thing moving at a better pace.

I'd still prefer single-sex restrooms with an available sole-user unisex/family room overall.

Urinals are not that much faster. Once partitions are placed between urinals, there is not much difference between urinals and stalls. I was just in a restroom with partitions for urinals, and they were spaced the same as the partitions for the "regular" stalls.

 

[seanie]

Sperg? Do you mean the ableist slur, or am I missing something?

No idea what the “ableist slur” refers to, but it’s mocking the idea or a sex spectrum,

Between the sperm and the egg, there must be a sperg.

This is a well known reference.