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

[seanie]

And what sex are trans people?

The fact that you or anyone ask that question is a strong expression that they don't understand sex in any deeper way than an ignorant highschooler.

Sex isn't an A or B proposition, an all-or-nothing, one-or-the-other.

We have been discussing this fact for pretty much the entire thread and you have ignored it.

Sex is binary.


What is your evidence to the contrary?

 

[Emily Lake]

So sex is real. Cool,

Is it binary, is it a spectrum, is it impossible to determine?

The expression of sex is, from a biological perspective, much more complex than a single trite political slogan can express, as has been discussed at length and many times over in this thread.

Nah, it really isn't. It's quite well understood, and it works flawlessly 99.98% of the time. You're conflating variation in sex-linked traits with a variation in sex, as if a guy with a big dick is somehow "more male" than a guy with a small willy, as if a woman with giant knockers is somehow "more female" than a woman with apples. As if a short man is "less male" than a tall one, and a muscular woman is "less female" than a weak one. And you continue to conflate the existence of rare medical conditions with self-declared gender identity.

Look, you identify as "nonbinary". Presumably, that means you don't feel that you align with the sex stereotypes of either male or female in OUR society. I'm going to guess that you don't think that it means you're somehow not male.

And why are we discussing DSD conditions?

Because although hurting trans people may be your primary goal,

Fuck off with this claim, that's not seanie's goal at all, nor is it the result of excluding males from female-specific single-sex spaces - which is all that's being asked for.

trans people aren't the only people whose health and comfort will be impacted by the legal ruling which is the supposed focus of the thread. No one is required to share your tunnel vision. And there is, of course, enough overlap between trans and intersex people that attacking one class tends to hurt the other.

There is no material overlap at all between transgender identified people and people with medical conditions related to sexual development. That's like trying to argue that there's an overlap between schizophrenics and paraplegics that makes it a problem to exclude schizophrenics with fully functional bodies from using disabled parking.

 

[Emily Lake]

And what sex are trans people?

The fact that you or anyone ask that question is a strong expression that they don't understand sex in any deeper way than an ignorant highschooler.

Sex isn't an A or B proposition, an all-or-nothing, one-or-the-other.

Yes, it is.

We have been discussing this fact for pretty much the entire thread and you have ignored it.

Nah, you keep making unsupported baseless assertions that amount to nothing more than religious dogma, and then expecting that because you said so, everyone else must roll over and accept your beliefs.

 

[scombrid]

Trump is making asbestos great again. Surveillance pricing? Fuck yeah. Don’t need no stinking FTC getting in the way of that.

 

[Emily Lake]

Well that's remarkably off topic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Again, the obsession with public restrooms, when they’re possibly the least important situation.

It's your side that obsesses about them.

Which side are you referring to?
Seanie and I are both on the side of women who want a male free place for personal business, under certain circumstances.
Tom

But the flip side is they'll get male-presenting females.

It's really about making the trans disappear, not about putting them in the "right" bathroom.

What balls you have, telling me what my objective is.

Not you in particular, but those who have been pushing the anti-trans position.

 

[TomC]

Not you in particular, but those who have been pushing the anti-trans position.

Here on the IIDB, I don't know of anyone who has.
Some of us think that the considerations of female people are important, but that's not the same as anti-trans.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

I absolutely see that the issue is being exploited by the American right, but it’s not an issue manufactured by the right.

There are very real questions about competing rights, the appropriate treatment for children with gender incongruence etc.

If that’s just dismissed, as it has been, the issue will continue to hurt the Democrats.

The right is "exploiting" this issue in the same sense that a guy who hears his doorbell ring and finds a shiny new Porsche on his driveway with a ribbon around it and the keys and title on his doormat, and takes it out for a drive, is "exploiting" the Porsche.

 

[Jarhyn]

Not you in particular, but those who have been pushing the anti-trans position.

Here on the IIDB, I don't know of anyone who has.
Some of us think that the considerations of female people are important, but that's not the same as anti-trans.
Tom

Again, the obsession with public restrooms, when they’re possibly the least important situation.

It's your side that obsesses about them.

Which side are you referring to?
Seanie and I are both on the side of women who want a male free place for personal business, under certain circumstances.
Tom

But the flip side is they'll get male-presenting females.

It's really about making the trans disappear, not about putting them in the "right" bathroom.

What balls you have, telling me what my objective is.

Not you in particular, but those who have been pushing the anti-trans position.

I think yes, her, in particular.

The only reasons she has interacted with these forums, 90+% of her interaction here, is to push a conservative viewpoint on abortion and trans rights, and every time it has been pushing to enforce this view that causes women to be harassed.

It is hateful. Moreover, it looks extremely repressed. It's almost certainly a sign of some major issues of repressed gender identity.

Maybe she thinks if she can make Trans people disappear, she won't have to keep thinking about it all the time...

It certainly lives rent free in her head 24/7, seeing as she apparently puts together batches of posts to dump onto the forum whenever she has a bit of free time.

I just think it's dumb at this point that we entertain the idea that they have anything meaningful to say since every goddamn thread is just a repeat of the same bullshit as infinitum:

"oh, our 1998 highschool education understanding of gender is surely correct!"

"No, sex is a lot more complicated and messy around the edges, and highschool biology is not going to cut it because it ignores those edge cases entirely, and trans ideation is likely an edge case in mixed and uncommon gene expressions of features commonly associated with sex expression"

"You don't understand sex!!!!1111"

(Repeat a few hundred times from "sex is complicated through 'you don't understand')

 

[Jarhyn]

Not you in particular, but those who have been pushing the anti-trans position.

Here on the IIDB, I don't know of anyone who has.
Some of us think that the considerations of female people are important, but that's not the same as anti-trans.
Tom

No, no person's opinion here is important, female or not, who does not understand the biology, psychology, or neurology of hormones and sex.

Emily has demonstrated that this includes her, so no, her opinion does not matter; if she is willing to disregard truth in favor of her narrative she has disqualified herself from having a valid opinion here.

 

[seanie]

And by “truth” you mean “made up horseshit”?

It’s important we keep track of how people are using terms.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Quit asking the hard questions!!

There are no hard questions in that post.
As usual, males do whatever they want.

What's difficult about that?
Tom

Sure there is. It's the same question we keep asking over and over and nobody answers:

Do you want female-presenting people with penises in the women's room, or do you want male-presenting people with vaginas in the women's room?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And what if the birth certificate is wrong? Billions of birth certificates, some are bound to be erroneous.

Someone inserted an unintended hyphen in my wife's naturalization certificate, simply assuming a hyphenated name when that was not the case. Official government document, wrong. And in times past birth certificates occasionally got destroyed. Think the reconstructions are anything like 100% accurate?

A birth certificate does not determine a person’s sex. It is however a very reliable guide. And should a question arise as to a person’s sex, that question can be resolved by a straightforward one off genetic test.

Because a person’s sex is an objective material reality, regardless of paperwork.

It's not a straightforward genetic test to catch all the ways things can go wrong. And by no means can we be confident that we know all the ways it can go wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think you’re right about that but”risk=zero” is just unsupportable nonsense.

Then find some risk.

Because nobody's been able to show a sexual assault by a female-presenting person with a penis in a women's bathroom. Bugged me for a while that I couldn't find any data comparing offense rates--finally found out that was because there's nothing to compare.

Not completely true as I linked up thread a case where a high school student who wore dresses and used the girl’s bathroom raped a girl in the bathroom and had apparently assaulted a different girl in their previous high school. I don’t know if that is ‘female presenting’ enough for you?

The article said "skirt" and said that it didn't look like they were trans. Thus I do not read that as female presenting.

As far as victims of sexual assault being traumatized by male appearing bodies in their dressing rooms: I have a lot of sympathy.

No one should have to worry about being safe in a restroom or locker room. No one.

Which still misses the problem--you're trying to require male-appearing people in the women's.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Any male who doesn’t respect females’ need for male free spaces, in some situations, is a massive red flag.

Which still does not address the issue of you asking for male-presenting people in the women's.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, that’s not what male and female refer to.

Male and female refer to the two reproductive sexes that exist across a vast array of plants and animals.

Hiking equipment notwithstanding.

You're talking about the internal manifestation. I'm talking about the external manifestation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And again, what do rare genetic conditions have to do with men without rare genetic conditions, considering themselves women?

A "solution" that fails in the edge cases is not a solution. Logic that works 99.98% of the time is a bug, intolerable in a loop that executes 8 billion times.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The reason that a majority of people don’t send a lot of time contemplating gender is that for a majority of people, sex and gender align pretty well. But not for everybody. In the US, the rights of minorities are as important ( in theory, at least) as the rights of the majority.

Disagree. I don't think we are in a position to know if it's because they align or because they don't care.

I can look at the issue but it doesn't make much sense to me. Ok, I've got guy bits. I've also got blond hair. That's simply the way it is, how is it right or wrong?

Really? What does hair color have to do with sex or gender?

I was comparing importance.

For you and for humans, they do not question whether they are make or female. Their compliment of X and Y chromosomes corresponds well with their genitalia AND with how they perceive themselves.

You don’t question it re: yourself because it fits and makes sense to you. It simply is who you are and there is zero incongruence. It’s even simpler for you because you are ( based on your posts) heterosexual.

For me, no one seeing me would ever mistake me fur anything other than female, despite in my teen years being pretty flat chested and being teased about that rather mercilessly by my sisters who claimed I could not really be a girl. Which went along with the observable fact that I was very much a tomboy who had a number of what were then thought of as typically male interests. And which ignored my typically female interests. For a while I considered that I wished I were a boy but really what I wanted is what I saw as the privilege boys had over girls. In my generation, boys were preferred and certainly my father wanted a son. I was also continually told I was just like my father—and in some ways, that was true. But otoh, my father closely resembled his mother who had died when he was a child. I don’t know if he was like her in personality but I’m guessing he was at least somewhat, based upon the scant knowledge I have of her. Even though I was sometimes teased or ridiculed and occasionally resented for having so-called make attributes, it never for a moment ever occurred to me that I was not female. Instead I believed that it was incorrect to assign interests to either boy or girl. I still do believe that. But as it happens my physical self aligns well with my self perception and I am heterosexual.

But for some people life is not that simple. They do not feel comfortable being called boy because they don’t feel like a boy. Or they don’t feel like a girl even though their body is female. Some individuals feel like they are neither make or female. And that gets complicated because people like assigning others specific boxes. Throw in sexual attraction and all its variants and there simply are a lot of different kinds of people in the world, just considering sex, gender, and sexuality without getting into introvert/extrovert or race or religion or heritage or languages spoken at home or height or weight or hair color or texture and so on.

You and I are fortunate that we’ve never questioned our sex or gender. Most people are like us in that respect.

I don't question it but I find it unimportant.

But not everybody is. And this has been known to be a fact wherever it has not been explicitly suppressed by whatever authorities there were across the globe for at least as long as there’s has been written word and I suspect as long as humans have existed.

Nowadays, we talk about it more because at least some individuals are more open about who they are and are less likely to stay inside the neat little boxes that society put them in. And because it is now being used as a political issue.

Which does not rebut my point that what we see in no way requires the mind to actually have a male vs female in all cases. A don't-care mind works with either set of anatomy without causing a problem so how do we know how prevalent it is?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is no ambiguity at all about most people’s sex.

Continuing to repeat this adds nothing to the discussion.

Oh, so now all of a sudden you care whether claims add anything to the discussion, do you?

Which side are you referring to?
Seanie and I are both on the side of women who want a male free place for personal business, under certain circumstances.

...
It's really about making the trans disappear, not about putting them in the "right" bathroom.

Asserting this adds nothing to the discussion.

I don’t think any men they should be using facilities reserved for women.

...
(Yeah, I know, the real "answer" is that they disappear.)

Continuing to repeat this adds nothing to the discussion.

Well, does the existence of intersexed people tell us what course of action produces the least harm? Does lying about whether Parliament meant biological sex produce the least harm? Does lying about whether transwomen are women produce the least harm? I'm skeptical about whether make-believe is an effective harm-reduction strategy.

... Of course the real position is expressed by P2025--that they cease to exist in society.

Continuing to repeat this adds nothing to the discussion.

You are not stupid, so you cannot possibly believe that making up the most shameful motive you can think of and condescendingly explaining to your opponent that that's his real reason is an effective way to persuade him. He knows his own motives, goals and intentions far better than you do. So you must know that when he hears you he's going to know perfectly well that you're just trumping up an ad hominem argument. So who exactly are you trying to convince when you tell us "the real position" is that they cease to exist in society? The gender ideologues on your side -- are you virtue signaling? Lurkers -- are you well-poisoning? Yourself -- are you giving yourself permission to dismiss our actual arguments even though you haven't refuted them?

Making up a discreditable motive is all too easy. Here, I'll do it back to you. We all know why you care about this issue. Single-sex bathrooms are awkward for your sister-in-law, because she's mannish-looking so other women keep objecting to her using the women's room. It's distressing to her, and she's family, and you care about her. And distress to one woman you know and care about carries more weight on your scales of cost/benefit analysis than distress to a hundred million women you don't know and don't care about.

I'll bet you don't find that a persuasive argument. Think about that the next time you're tempted to tell us we just want trans people to cease to exist.

I'm talking about the movement. It's about stomping out the trans. Plenty of people have fallen for the propaganda without supporting that goal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Or cos light is a spectrum?

Light is a spectrum, you uneducated fool! Just how many centuries are you trying to roll us back?

Pretty sure they are saying light IS a spectrum, but that doesn't mean sex is. Like, that clownfish can change sex doesn't mean humans can. You should have quoted their whole post.

Yeah, I understood that part.

I was attacking the logic.

if (p > .9998%) then it's binary.

I gave a set that meets that test, but clearly is not binary, therefore the argument is wrong.

Same as chair = 4 legs and you sit on it: