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

[Bomb#20]

When I was a kid it was generally taken for granted by social convention that everyone was a Christian. Anyone who had doubts about the correctness of Christianity was expected to keep quiet about them and pay lip service to the common "universally" shared belief. Anyone who failed to play his assigned role in that consensus-theater was considered not cool and just being a dick, by the Christians. This social convention of keeping our views to ourselves was of course asymmetrical -- Christians were counted cool and undickish when they made a public show of their opinions. Is there some way you're an iota different from the Christians of my childhood? Do Emily and the other gender critical people here have some unscientific opinion of our own that you're volunteering to pretend to agree with for the sake of politely respecting our sensibilities? This "cool" non-"dick" lying you're advocating -- is it a one-way street? Is it a mission you'd send your troops on but wouldn't go on yourself?

The problem here is that you're the Christian, not her.

Show your work.

 

[Toni]

I don’t think any thinks Isaac Newton didn’t do physics, but neither did he have high precision nor lots of observations.

Newton did a crap ton of observations and had incredibly high precision in what he observed. His theories regarding light and motion weren't developed solely from a philosophical perspective, but began with a massive amount of observations, formulated into hypotheses, with testable predictions (which held out), then formalized with supporting mathematical functions that could be applied to predict future outcomes. We still use his actual hard science in our everyday lives.

How in the heck did this derail come about?!

Someone dissed social sciences and I defended them, although I’m not a social scientist. I chose not to reply to that post.
I’m into cell and molecular biology with a dash biochemistry, with outside interests in ecology and a strong interest in literature and visual arts. But I have friends who are in a variety of social sciences and even liberal arts. IMO, a lot of what is currently going wrong in the world or at least the US is the dismissal of the value of social sciences and liberal arts.

Knowledge is good and I cannot see the wisdom in pissing on other fields just to try to prove to yourself that ‘your’ field is the smartest.

Knowledge is good but wisdom is more important. And so is having an appreciation of beauty and light and other human being.

 

[TomC]

Naw, she's always been like that.

I wouldn't know. Emily has been a member here twice as long as I have. But if she's been consistently misrepresented, like I've seen, I wouldn't be surprised.

Also, I qualified my statement appropriately.

Naw.
You qualified it just enough to avoid being a flat out lie. Emily has never suggested that transgender doesn't exist.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

It was presented in this thread. Exactly as we expected--male-presenting individuals using the women's causes arrests and violence.

Sounds like you're talking about Strobel. And you're the guy who wrote:

"Except I see repeated references to very low quality evidence, no unquestionable cases.​

And reality has taught me that a sea of low quality data almost always means false."​

Strobel is low quality evidence if ever there was any. She isn't even what you're claiming her as an example of, "having to use the bathroom that doesn't match your presentation". She didn't have to use the women's room; that was her choice. What's worse, there's no indication that what happened to her was because of her male presentation. Before she went into the women's room she went into the men's room, and then she identified herself to the bar staff as a man. It's entirely likely that if she hadn't done those things and had just gone into the women's room in the first place, nothing bad would have happened to her. Strobel gave the bar owner every reason to think the "F" on her license was a lie; that's on her.

The problem was she didn't want to be visible in the men's room with a vagina. I don't blame her.

And the fact that the ID said "F" should have settled it. It went way too far.

Certainly. The cop and bar owner and waitress all acted badly; that isn't the point. You're ignoring Strobel's part in setting the stage. When somebody tells an inconsistent story it's human nature for others to assume he's lying to try to get away with something, so they discount input from him and form their own judgment -- all too often just falling back on their own biases. That makes this case low quality evidence for your conclusion. You dismiss other people's examples as low quality evidence for less.

 

[Bomb#20]

Cite? I can find any number of medical sources saying guevedoces are born with "pseudovaginas" or "what appear to be vaginas", but none saying they have "vaginas". Perhaps your google-fu is better than mine.

Before we start splitting hairs over the differences between a pseudovagina, a vaginal pouch, a blind vagina, and a vagina that does not terminate in a cervix, perhaps we should first discuss whether someone who has what appears to be a vagina, functions like a vagina during non-reproductive penis-in-vagina sex, and naturally developed in the place where vaginas grow, can say they have a vagina? Then we can move on to listing what it is about her vagina that posters here think excludes her from the "has a vagina" category.

And then we'll talk about the women in my family who've had hysterectomies and now have "blind vaginas", "vaginal pouches", etc.

No need to specify non-reproductive on the sex bit. The vagina works as it's supposed to, it's just not connected to anything. Same as a woman with a hysterectomy.

Cite? If the cavity between a guevedoce's legs is the same as a woman with a hysterectomy's cavity then you should be able to find a medical source that calls it a vagina.

 

[Arctish]

Cite? I can find any number of medical sources saying guevedoces are born with "pseudovaginas" or "what appear to be vaginas", but none saying they have "vaginas". Perhaps your google-fu is better than mine.

Before we start splitting hairs over the differences between a pseudovagina, a vaginal pouch, a blind vagina, and a vagina that does not terminate in a cervix, perhaps we should first discuss whether someone who has what appears to be a vagina, functions like a vagina during non-reproductive penis-in-vagina sex, and naturally developed in the place where vaginas grow, can say they have a vagina? Then we can move on to listing what it is about her vagina that posters here think excludes her from the "has a vagina" category.

And then we'll talk about the women in my family who've had hysterectomies and now have "blind vaginas", "vaginal pouches", etc.

No need to specify non-reproductive on the sex bit. The vagina works as it's supposed to, it's just not connected to anything. Same as a woman with a hysterectomy.

Cite? If the cavity between a guevedoce's legs is the same as a woman with a hysterectomy's cavity then you should be able to find a medical source that calls it a vagina.

Is it time to start splitting hairs over the differences between a pseudovagina, a vaginal pouch, a blind vagina, and a vagina that does not terminate in a cervix?

Go right ahead.

Meanwhile, the sources I have read say guevedoces have what appears to be a vagina between their legs. I take that to mean if the average person saw a guevedoce's groin, he or she would think they were seeing a vagina in there along with some rather small man parts.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Naw, she's always been like that.

I wouldn't know.

I would.

Emily has been a member here twice as long as I have.

Are we including before her banning?

But if she's been consistently misrepresented, like I've seen, I wouldn't be surprised.

Also, I qualified my statement appropriately.

Naw.
You qualified it just enough to avoid being a flat out lie. Emily has never suggested that transgender doesn't exist.

Which is why I said "your statement", but I should know by now nuance is not an art you dabble much in.

Why in the world would I need to lie about Emily Lake's position?

 

[TomC]

Are we including before her banning?

I don't know what you mean. Emily posts here, obviously she has not been banned. But I have been suspended more than once for being a little too honest. Is that what you mean?
Or has she now been banned? I'm not staff, I wouldn't know.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If it's not concocted why do we keep seeing poor evidence being trumpeted? Why do we not see any good evidence? Why did this suddenly show up when the reich wing needed a bogeyman?

There is plenty of evidence... but you continue to reject it out of hand, or you hand-wave it away as "not a big deal" because it doesn't impact men.

And it didn't suddenly show up - it's been under discussion for well over a decade. You only started paying attention when the right wing grabbed on to it. When it was predominantly women complaining about it, you didn't notice.

And seriously, if Dems are so idiotic as to continue pushing policies that place fully intact males in female prisons on the basis of their magic words, continue to push policies that let middle-school boys hang out in the girl's showers and look at boobies as long as they say their name is "Cloud" and they go by "she/her pronouns", as long as they continue to support male-bodied people competing in women's sports and displacing women from their own competitions... As long as Dems continue to DEMAND that transwomen are really actually totally real women...

Well, you're just handing that to Repubs on a silver platter, complete with garnish. Of course they're going to shine a light on it so that everyone can see how insane it is.

If there's been good evidence why do we keep seeing the questionable stuff?

Note that I am talking about society in general. Prison is another matter, I suspect the only answer is to give them a separate prison.

And I find it unfathomable that a teenager is going to go through the harassment they'll get just to see some boobies. Especially since they would have to be subtle about it to avoid complaints.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And many of us do not agree with that position. You would be in a male body, that wouldn't make your mind male.

There is no "male mind". We don't have pink or blue brains. There are sex-based difference in our brains that are directly related to the sexed development processes we go through as fetuses. There are differences in some parts of the brain as they are influenced by hormones. But there is no fucking "male mind".

Like I said, I'd be very confused, and probably behaviorally unusual, but I would be in a body that is incontrovertibly male... therefore I would be a man.

You say there is no gendered mind but the bad results from attempting to surgically correct the intersexed clearly show there's something upstairs. We don't understand it yet but we can observe the bad outcomes of going against it so it must exist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don’t think any thinks Isaac Newton didn’t do physics, but neither did he have high precision nor lots of observations.

He didn't make them, doesn't mean he didn't have them. Namely, the observations of the positions of the planets in the sky. Centuries of data.

 

[laughing dog]

I don’t think any thinks Isaac Newton didn’t do physics, but neither did he have high precision nor lots of observations.

He didn't make them, doesn't mean he didn't have them. Namely, the observations of the positions of the planets in the sky. Centuries of data.

Then social scientists are a science because there are centuries of observations of humans in societies.

 

[laughing dog]

I don’t think any thinks Isaac Newton didn’t do physics, but neither did he have high precision nor lots of observations.

Newton did a crap ton of observations and had incredibly high precision in what he observed. His theories regarding light and motion weren't developed solely from a philosophical perspective, but began with a massive amount of observations, formulated into hypotheses, with testable predictions (which held out), then formalized with supporting mathematical functions that could be applied to predict future outcomes. We still use his actual hard science in our everyday lives.

Sounds like a lot of social science.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But there are people in this thread that want to pretend transgenderism is a choice.

Some is not a choice, and is likely to have a neurological basis (unclear whether it's congenital or acquired). Some is a paraphilia. Some is a misplaced fixation driven by autism. Some is a coping mechanism for trauma related to their sexed body. And some is simply exploitation of a gigantic gaping loophole that lets males be in the presence of non-consenting naked females with no consequences.

If we had any remotely reasonable way to tell these apart, it would be an entirely different discussion, and there would be many options for how best to address those few with a neurological basis.

The problem is you still haven't demonstrated someone who will go to the DMV to get the "F" license for the purpose of exploitation.

Darren Merager.

History of FELONY sexual offenses, including multuple cases of indecent exposure and flashing. Changed *HIS* sex marker to "F", which required no background check, no medical diagnoses, nothing other than him showing up and asking for a new ID.

Consequently, the fact that his ID now says "F" led to him being found not guilty of indecent exposure, because he was only doing what every other women in a nude spa was doing - airing out his dick and balls.

Nude where nudity was normal. The allegation was simple nudity, not doing things to others.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is made worse by the fact that *some* people who assert to be transwomen are doing so as a means of feeding a paraphilia using women as live action props in their sexual role play. Even if it's not many, they do exist, and that's a problem.

There are a lot more lesbians than trans.

Loren, do you think that homosexuality is a paraphilia?

Huh? The paraphilia you were referring to was using them as props. Why is that exclusive to trans and not lesbians?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Seriously, men in this thread are absolutely discounting fears and concerns of women.

And they are right to do so.

People should discount fears and concerns, in the absence of evidence that those fears are based on actual threats.

$*&(^#@*(*&(^*^%#*&

1 in 5 women in the US has been subjected to an attempted or completed rape - including both me and Toni.
80% of women in the US have been sexually assaulted - and that doesn't include the ones who don't count having their boob grabbed by a total stranger as a sexual assault, and see it as just the cost of being a woman.
90% of the victims of sexual assault are female, and 98% of the perpetrators are male.

But sure. Go ahead and mansplain to us silly old hens that our concerns and fears are irrational.

*)%^$&^^%@!$

You keep referring to rape in general without distinguishing the circumstances. Yes, your fear is real--but you haven't established that trans are an actual threat. We are taking the position that fears should be evaluated, society should only enforce protection from realistic fears.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As a child, about 9 or 10, I had an experience that has stuck with me in a really visceral way. This would have been in the eighties. I was with my bio-dad for the summer, and one of his friends was hanging out. He had on extremely short shorts, the kind that were a bit loose around the thighs, late 70s to early 80s style running shorts. I was sitting on the floor playing with my 1-year old brother, and this guy was sitting across from me with his legs spread, and his penis visible. He kept looking at me and bobbing his penis. This guy was getting sexually aroused from showing his penis to me as a very young child.

I wasn't raised to think that nudity was shameful. Up until about 5, I would take group showers after being at the beach with my parents. We weren't nudists, but I was raised to think that nudity was natural and nothing to be ashamed of, but also to be respectful because nudity isn't always appropriate.

But you aren't describing a situation where nudity is the problem. Rather, sexual actions directed at a child. Very, very wrong.

Even though I didn't, and still don't think that nudity is shameful, I do think that nudity can present a risk... and that risk is greater for women than it is for men. That experience was intensely creepy at the time, even though I didn't completely understand why it was so creepy and intimidating. It's stuck with me my entire life.

Does that qualify as a "thing-breaking-edge-case" for you when it comes to views on whether or not mixed-sex nudity in some limited situations is a bad idea?

You're blaming nudity when that's not the cause.

Are you quite certain? Do you think that this man would hesitate one little bit if he were legally allowed by right to go into a YMCA women's locker room when there were young girls present... if the only thing he had to do was say "I go by she/her pronouns"? Are you under the impression that if he were in a place where nudity was allowable and commonplace, he would NOT engage in such sexual activity toward a child?

I'm saying the behavior should not be tolerated anywhere. Note that you were not in a restroom when it happened.

 

[Toni]

Seriously, men in this thread are absolutely discounting fears and concerns of women.

And they are right to do so.

People should discount fears and concerns, in the absence of evidence that those fears are based on actual threats.

$*&(^#@*(*&(^*^%#*&

1 in 5 women in the US has been subjected to an attempted or completed rape - including both me and Toni.
80% of women in the US have been sexually assaulted - and that doesn't include the ones who don't count having their boob grabbed by a total stranger as a sexual assault, and see it as just the cost of being a woman.
90% of the victims of sexual assault are female, and 98% of the perpetrators are male.

But sure. Go ahead and mansplain to us silly old hens that our concerns and fears are irrational.

*)%^$&^^%@!$

You keep referring to rape in general without distinguishing the circumstances. Yes, your fear is real--but you haven't established that trans are an actual threat. We are taking the position that fears should be evaluated, society should only enforce protection from realistic fears.

You are t actually reading or understanding what has been written.

Trans women are unlikely to harm another woman in a female only space.

Some individuals assert that they are trans and have indeed harmed girls and women in women’s bathrooms and other female only spaces. These are not actually trans individuals.

A substantial number of women and girls have been raped or sexually assaulted by males. This has often left them with some degree of trauma or PTSD. Being confronted by a naked body with a penis in a female only space can be triggering for great many females who have experienced sexual assault or rape. This is both an evolutionary and a conditioned response.

It seems likely that more males with nefarious motives will take advantage of the undefined criteria fur allowing persons who claim to be trans into female only spaces for nefarious reasons. This puts girls and women at risk.

Some females who are confronted by an exposed penis in a female only space might react in fear, and scream for help or might try to defend themselves against a perceived threat. The trans woman herself would, at the very least be traumatized and could very well face physical harm or arrest.

Think of it this way: at your gym, you would not be surprised or feel threatened by an exposed penis. Indeed, you would expect to see exposed penises and would not give it a second thought.

But suppose you were showering at home and there was a stranger with a penis in the shower right next to you. You didn’t invite this person and have no idea why they are there. It is almost certain you would perceive this as a threat because you would not expect a stranger with a penis in the shower in your home, You might be frightened, call out fir help, call the police or defend yourself by punching, etc. this would be understandable action in your part.

It is also understandable for women to be startled, frightened or traumatized if they unexpectedly saw a stranger with a penis in a women’s only space. Because almost no one would think that a person with a penis rightfully belonged in a woman’s only space. It would not be unreasonable to assume they were there for nefarious reasons and act accordingly.

Which is a tragedy for the traumatized women, cis or trans, and potentially dangerous.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I haven’t been clear: I do not think trans women are actually a threat to people in female only spaces.

Which is what we have been saying.

I DO think there is potential for trauma/triggering of PTSD for victims of sexual assault and also for trans women/girls who are screamed at or otherwise have individuals react in fear.

Lots of things can trigger PTSD. I don't think society is obligated to hide them.

My initial reaction to a naked male appearing body if I were showering in the women’s locker room at the gym would be to assume a threat. Most women would assume a threat. Most girls would assume a threat.

This is an instinctive reaction in part but also a conditioned reaction. In most places in the US, showers facilities are separated by gender and sex and for most people gender and sex are congruent.

Yes, a conditioned reaction. That doesn't justify maintaining it's legal status.

Very few rattle snakes will bite anyone unless disturbed or startled. That does not reduce the fear of rattle snakes if one should happen to encounter one in the shower. Not to be overly Freudian here. I’m guessing most males would experience fear if they encountered a rattle snake in the shower, much more so than if they encountered one in a zoo exhibit or say, at some distance on a hiking trail.

Every encounter I've had has been under 10'. And I would experience a lot more surprise if I found one in the shower but fear is purely a matter of range.

 

[Bomb#20]

The objective is to remove them from society.

That is an untestable sociological claim. You keep saying stuff like that, and it appears that your purpose is to tar reasonable arguments with guilt-by-association, as if it were up to you to pick among all the objectives of all the widely varying people you disagree with and issue a ruling on which of those objectives is "the" objective. You are effectively making an ad hominem argument. Ad hominem arguments are fallacies.

I won't claim it's a scientific conclusion.

But look at Project 2025. Presenting as trans = pornography. If a minor sees you that's showing pornography to a minor, which is already illegal.

Why in the world should I think they don't intend to implement Project 2025?

Dude! You think you can make an ad hominem argument not be a fallacy by name-dropping? What the hell do the Project 2025 people have to do with us on iidb? Do you sincerely believe "We should take women's single-sex spaces away from them because I can find somebody really bad who doesn't want us to." is a sound argument? What, do all the women in America who're creeped out by co-ed bathrooms deserve to be punished for Project 2025's sins?!?