• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

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

No. Focus. Wendy's did a bunch of nasty stuff to three trans employees and deserves to get nailed for that, duh; but the issue for here is specifically the suit's allegation that insisting the women use the women's room and the man use the men's room are among those Title VII violations and qualify as harassment. That's a legal point that has not yet been settled by the courts, but the fact that the suit was brought at all, and I'm guessing it's not the only one, serves to intimidate other employers into converting single-sex restrooms to all-gender.
So if we ignore the facts of the case, it supports your wild claims of persecution,
:rolleyes2: Sorry, I'm going to need you to remind me whom I'm making wild claims of persecution of; it's hard to keep track of all your fantasies about me. Pointing out that business owners try to avoid lawsuits isn't claiming persecution, just noting that it's pretty common for days to end with "y". Getting businesses to follow policy by making the threat realistic is pretty much the whole point of having an EEOC in the first place and not depending on aggrieved employees to have the means to mount a lawsuit by themselves.

and corrolary insistence that businesses "only" serve their potential customers' needs for fear of lawsuit.
:rolleyes2: Women who'll be put off by men using the women's room count as potential customers too. If it's left up to owners' choice then some owners will certainly serve their potential trans customers' needs preferences, yes; but we'll probably find most owners can do arithmetic.
Did you forget what we were talking about? You were arguing that business owners prefer universally to have only two bathrooms, one male and one female, but because they were terrified by the Wendy's lawsuit, are now building non-gendered bathrooms as well to avoid being attacked by the EEOC, which did and does not go after businesses for having two bathrooms, an incredibly common and indeed still overwhelmingly normative situation outside of a few tiny pockets of liberality on the edges of the country. In any case, if the problem is "women being put off by men using the women's room", then the EEOC is acting to correct that arguing problem by "forcing" business owners to provide more options and thus making your doomsday situation less likely.
 
And why do you think you're paying for that park? The baseball team pays for it. From ticket sales.

What Bomb and I noted was an opaque fence. That's about ticket revenue.
Hey man, I didn't say anything about opaque or about ticket revenue. Leave me out of your stealing theory. My issue is with some third party assuming her notions of justice should trump the landowner's right to put up a fence and/or trump economic cause-and-effect.
 
It was beneficial for fifty years' worth of women with unwanted pregnancies.
An actual law would have been better. Because we would then still have its protection.
Obviously. I've been saying so for years. It would have been better even though that's not a "solution that all states and cities would find acceptable as a top-down, firearm-enforced mandate."

The SCOTUS are feds too, and they're apt to impose another top down federal solution, probably one that obviously favors one ideological faction over another.
That much is certain. And you only think that's a good thing
You might want to rethink your conviction that you have ESP -- you really aren't good at it. Where on earth did you get the absurd notion that I think it's a good thing? I literally just cited it as a counterargument to your argument against further federal legislation.

because you think they'll do something akin to this Scottish court.
Seriously, dude, why do you feel so bloody entitled to just make stuff up about people? I don't know what they'll do if they get such a case but I think it's pretty much guaranteed not to be much like the UK* court's decision, since there's nothing in the US governmental system analogous to Parliamentary supremacy.

(* There was no "this Scottish court". It's a British court and most of the judges are English.)

and corrolary insistence that businesses "only" serve their potential customers' needs for fear of lawsuit.
:rolleyes2: Women who'll be put off by men using the women's room count as potential customers too. If it's left up to owners' choice then some owners will certainly serve their potential trans customers' needs preferences, yes; but we'll probably find most owners can do arithmetic.
Did you forget what we were talking about? You were arguing that business owners prefer universally to have only two bathrooms, one male and one female, but because they were terrified by the Wendy's lawsuit, are now building non-gendered bathrooms as well to avoid being attacked by the EEOC, which did and does not go after businesses for having two bathrooms, an incredibly common and indeed still overwhelmingly normative situation outside of a few tiny pockets of liberality on the edges of the country.
Apparently you find what I'm saying to you to be completely reasonable and very probably correct -- otherwise you wouldn't need to keep putting words in my mouth that are easier targets for your invective. No, I was not arguing that. You added the "only" and "universally" (un)qualifiers to my description of a general trend; and the "now building" bit is pure invention on your part. I claimed nothing of the sort; what I said was "ongoing proliferation of all-gender restrooms". If you actually believe those words imply employers are building anything more than restroom door signs, then you're surprisingly unimaginative for someone so prone to fantasies about other posters.

(And before you edit your fantasy into a new fantasy about me, no, I'm also obviously not saying the EEOC has been telling businesses with two bathrooms to relabel one to all-gender. It's been telling businesses to let men use the women's room and women use the men's room, labels be damned. The relabeling is truth in advertising -- putting customers on notice that they may find a man in what used to be the women's room.)

In any case, if the problem is "women being put off by men using the women's room", then the EEOC is acting to correct that arguing problem by "forcing" business owners to provide more options and thus making your doomsday situation less likely.
But as you note they weren't forcing business owners to provide more options; they were just disallowing the option women typically prefer. (Of course now that Trump is the EEOC's boss, the bathroom use lawsuits may be going away. The jackass will probably ditch the actual harassment cases too. Baby, meet bathwater. :glare: )
 
This penny ante, tit for tat shit is a waste of time.
For many weeks now, I have only been looking at this thread to clear it off the "New Posts" list. But this post caught my eye, and simply demands the question "Has it really taken you over 2,800 posts to reach that conclusion??"
 
This penny ante, tit for tat shit is a waste of time.
For many weeks now, I have only been looking at this thread to clear it off the "New Posts" list. But this post caught my eye, and simply demands the question "Has it really taken you over 2,800 posts to reach that conclusion??"
You have a point.
 
And you'll keep posting that same thing over and over, no matter what anyone replies.
And yet,
You post some more tit for tat shit with no relevance to the topic.
The problem is that Seanie is fundamentally correct but that doesn't work for your trans activist ideology so you dismiss it.
Tom
 
And you'll keep posting that same thing over and over, no matter what anyone replies.
And yet,
You post some more tit for tat shit with no relevance to the topic.
The problem is that Seanie is fundamentally correct but that doesn't work for your trans activist ideology so you dismiss it.
Tom
The irony is strong in this one.
 
And you'll keep posting that same thing over and over, no matter what anyone replies.
And yet,
You post some more tit for tat shit with no relevance to the topic.
The problem is that Seanie is fundamentally correct but that doesn't work for your trans activist ideology so you dismiss it.
Tom
Except that I dismissed nothing. I've tried to explain in the tiniest words possible that no one denies sex exists, and "sometimes matters". If it didn't, I would not be complaining about government overreach and inequity surrounding discrimination on the basis of sex. But he just keeps posting the same stupid slogans, over and over, like a poorly programmed AI.
 
Tell me, seanie. You're "left-wing". What makes you left-wing, exactly? Are you a socialist? What leftist ideas do you embrace?
 
And you'll keep posting that same thing over and over, no matter what anyone replies.
And yet,
You post some more tit for tat shit with no relevance to the topic.
The problem is that Seanie is fundamentally correct but that doesn't work for your trans activist ideology so you dismiss it.
Tom
The irony is strong in this one.
And yet another content free bit of ideology.
Tom
Bravo - that one broke irony meters in the meta- verse!
 
Tell me, seanie. You're "left-wing". What makes you left-wing, exactly? Are you a socialist? What leftist ideas do you embrace?
Well that’s a self-description from 23 years ago.

Not taken it for a while, but Political Compass always had me at the bottom left hand corner, roundabout Noam Chomsky.

Libertarian Socialist territory.
 
I support progressive taxation, redistribution of wealth, universal healthcare, public education, abortion rights, equal treatment before the law, a presumption against discrimination in general but not always, equal pay, a right to unionisation, decent public services, regulation of the private sector in the interests of society.

Stuff like that.
 
I support progressive taxation, redistribution of wealth, universal healthcare, public education, abortion rights, equal treatment before the law, a presumption against discrimination in general but not always, equal pay, a right to unionisation, decent public services, regulation of the private sector in the interests of society.

Stuff like that.
You also support women's rights even when it interferes with male entitlements. That used to be considered leftist.
Tom
 
IMO, you and Bomb are looking very very hard to find an excuse to keep some people out because they do not ‘fit’ into your idea of worthy.

You seem unaware that a world exists outside your narrow life ( we all have narrow life experience) experience and anything out of your experience does not bear examining.
IMO, you don't need to look at all to find ad hominems to use against me, since you evidently feel no compunctions about just making something up. I said nothing about who was or wasn't worthy. The kids are being kept out because the landowner wants to. If the land is public property, the kids are being kept out because the landowner wants to -- the landowner is the government, and the government gets to decide who to keep out, and the public get to democratically choose who governs them. And when governments put up fences they typically have reasons that have nothing to do with who is "worthy" and everything to do with maintaining control over what the land is used for. And a society where owners lose control over what their land is used for is a society without baseball games to watch. So quit slandering your opponents as a way to give yourself permission to dismiss counterarguments without thinking about them.
 
Back
Top Bottom