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

[seanie]

Barely changed.

 

[Toni]

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.

The government is we, the people. At least in the US. For now, anyways.

I haven’t made up anything about you. I’ve drawn conclusions, sure and my conclusions can hardly be further off the mark than yours are about the illustration I shared.

I think you win the prize for slander here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yikes. I had not considered the ill effects possible with the all gender bathrooms. How horrible.

Some of us have already pointed out the risk scenario. I was not aware that it had been tried, but I am not at all surprised at the outcome.

 

[seanie]

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.

Er, have you missed all the people insisting sex is a spectrum or a white supremacist Victorian invention?

They’re not hard to find.

 

[southernhybrid]

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??"

I had been thinking the same thing and I often wonder why some threads on IIDB go on for weeks, months and sometimes even years when it's obvious that people keep saying and believing the same things with very rare exceptions. What is the point?

Plus people on both sides insult each other. it's a joke that this part of the forum says it's the academic discussion of politics. Since when is insulting other people a way to convince them they are wrong? This isn't a discussion. It's a shit flinging party. I waste too much time here too, and I don't know why. I guess it's a bad habit.

 

[seanie]

Well isn’t that a worthwhile contribution.

This is a very live political matter, that affects people’s lives whichever side of the argument prevails.

It might not interest you, but that doesn’t mean it’s not important.

 

[TomC]

Hey Sohy
Tom

 

[seanie]

A cartoon to live by.

 

[seanie]

I had been thinking the same thing and I often wonder why some threads on IIDB go on for weeks, months and sometimes even years when it's obvious that people keep saying and believing the same things with very rare exceptions. What is the point?

Plus people on both sides insult each other. it's a joke that this part of the forum says it's the academic discussion of politics. Since when is insulting other people a way to convince them they are wrong? This isn't a discussion. It's a shit flinging party. I waste too much time here too, and I don't know why. I guess it's a bad habit.

So, male double rapists in female prisons?

Good idea or bad idea?

 

[laughing dog]

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??"

I had been thinking the same thing and I often wonder why some threads on IIDB go on for weeks, months and sometimes even years when it's obvious that people keep saying and believing the same things with very rare exceptions. What is the point?

Plus people on both sides insult each other. it's a joke that this part of the forum says it's the academic discussion of politics. Since when is insulting other people a way to convince them they are wrong? This isn't a discussion. It's a shit flinging party. I waste too much time here too, and I don't know why. I guess it's a bad habit.

Academics are not above shit-flinging discussions .

More importantly, in policy discussions, there need not necessarily be a wrong view. Sometimes, it is simply a matter of different priorities.

 

[Politesse]

Only fools think a political dispute can be resolved by being "right" or "wrong".

 

[seanie]

So “right” and “wrong” don’t matter?

That seems a strange position to take.

 

[Politesse]

So “right” and “wrong” don’t matter?

That seems a strange position to take.

Oh, they matter a great deal. But realizing you have values, a position on something, is where political life begins. Not where it ends. No one is compelled to agree with you, and rarely does a moral argument change that balance, unless you are speaking with someone too naive to have ever considered the issue before.

 

[seanie]

Your point being what?

 

[seanie]

Because that seems to be a lot of words signifying nothing.

 

[laughing dog]

So “right” and “wrong” don’t matter?

That seems a strange position to take.

It is a strange one to take. Which is why no one took it.

 

[seanie]

So why are “right” and “wrong” irrelevant to the resolution of a political dispute?

 

[seanie]

They would appear to be fairly fundamental questions in a lot of political disputes.

Wouldn’t they?

 

[laughing dog]

No one said they were irrelevant. No one said they may not be fundamental to policy questions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Title IX is one of the most important amendments in the history of the Federal Education Code, and I support it wholeheartedly. I also routinely advise and inform my students as to their rights under Title IX, and assist them in securing those rights should they need it. Patsy Matsu Mink, who helped rescue the bill when it was being ripped to shreds in the House, is another personal hero of mine.

Title IX is one of those good ideas that turned out to not match the real world adequately.

As with most anti-discrimination efforts it pretends that equity is equality. Nope, in the real world there are more people interested in male sports than female sports and more people will pay to watch male sports.

And that is relevant to the underlying principle of equality of opportunity because….?

The problem with Title IX is the same thing that pervades all the anti-discrimination stuff: discrimination is measured by outcome, not opportunity.

Sports is a big time commitment and a certain amount of physical risk. Not everyone wants to and it's not balanced between the sexes.