Rolfe
Adult human female
No, it really isn't. You're playing silly games.
Transwomen are not Women - Part 15
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
No, it really isn't. You're playing silly games.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
I've only read selected passages so far, but it looks like the court is going to allow single-sex services, residential accommodations, higher education institutions, associations and charities, etc. They even mention that it's okay for "lesbians to associate in lesbian-only spaces" in the UK, without running afoul of antidiscrimination laws.
In the course of reading and understanding the entire judgement, did you happen to come across any part where transgender status could be expected to allow someone into services or spaces reserved for the opposite sex?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,647
When you walk up to restrooms and you see signs saying "men" and "women", do you think those signs refer to social expectations about men being stoic and aggressive and physically strong? Do you think those signs refer to women being demure and deferential and caring?
Or do you think perhaps they refer to the fact that males have different genitals than females, and so how they urinate is different as well?
You can appeal to broader "concepts" all you want to, but in context, how are those broader concepts relevant?
Thermal
August Member
I think they refer to our vanilla cisgender worldview, that is currently being challenged globally.
Because we are getting called to the carpet by a lot of people that are saying things have been cis-exclusive for too long, and it literally violates our principles of non-discrimination by gender.
Thermal
August Member
You were doing so well for a while there.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I think this so-called global challenge is going to go the way of the tulip craze. And your argument is no more than "words mean what I say they mean so I win." It's infantile.
I think https://www.cipd.org/uk/views-and-insights/thought-leadership/insight/definition-sex-equality-act/
Not via the Equalities act, where sex segregation is lawful it's now clear that even if a person has been able to change their sex legally for example on a passport, a trans person can't now use the Equality act's protection against sex discrimination to argue that them not being allowed in is sex discrimination. For purposes of the Equalities act sex discrimination is only based on your biological sex.
Thermal
August Member
Rolfe, do you want me to pick up that fig leaf you just dropped?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
No, it isn't. Binary sex in humans is remarkably unambiguous. We've been sex-segregating just fine for all of human history, with infinitesimal amounts of confusion about who goes where. There has never been any concern about ambiguity, in the establishment of women's spaces and categories.
That's not even remotely the problem. The problem is trans rights activists trying for entitlement where ambiguity doesn't suffice.
Symbols that have never been ambiguous before, and aren't ambiguous now.
The debate about trans rights in public policy would be very different, if it were really about establishing unisex restrooms for the comfort of gender dysphorics.
No. I'm arguing for a particular position on certain public policy questions having to do with trans rights. I'm arguing for the position that I believe does the most good for the most people, that has the most support from science and medicine, and that represents the best ethical and moral standards of our society. I am not "bantering stuff around".
Some people are very much asking that men be entitled to override sex segregation whenever they want. If you're going to "banter around" about compromising with those people on women's restrooms, I'd very much appreciate it if you would take the time to "banter around" who those people are, and what their argument is for changing the status quo on restrooms.
Me? I'm done with abstract debates. There's public policy being promoted and adopted. I want practical conclusions about that. I'm not interested in "imagine unisex bathrooms". I'm interested in, "give me a good reason why we should change the status quo".
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,647
You really should have thrown a "heteronormative" in there to prove your academic bona fides.
And don't think I didn't notice the goalpost move. Rolfe said that "man" and "woman" refer to sex (at least in the context of sex segregation). You said it's more complicated than that. I pointed out that no, it's generally not. Now your objection is that it SHOULD be more complicated than that. But that doesn't mean it is.
No we aren't. We have a very small group of very loud people objecting to the status quo.
Only in the sense that we didn't use to accept self-ID.
"our" principles of non-discrimination by gender? What you mean "our", white man?
Gender is made-up bull ◊◊◊◊. I have no principle of non-discrimination by gender. I have a principle of non-discrimination by sex, except in very limited circumstances (such as sports, bathrooms, changing rooms, and prisons). I don't discriminate based on gender because I don't care about gender, not because I have some principle about it. Why should I care about gender?
Thermal
August Member
That's where we are at. The Portland high school nailed it, as I see it. You don't need to 'imagine' anything.
As far as why to upset the status quo: it's been cis centric for generations. It's time to stop being a dick about it, as we were white male centric for generations before the non-majority got sick of being told to ◊◊◊◊ off.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Okay, so now that there is a sharp distinction between "biological sex" and "certificated sex," what will the latter category actually do for any given individual for whom these two categories diverge? I'm guessing there are quite a few possibilities, but nothing springs immediately to mind.
(I've got a certificate which says that I completed all the requirements of a specific undergraduate degree, but the only thing I've really used it for in the last couple of decades was getting a custom license plate for my car.)
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
But, like any act of parliament, the Equalities Act is overarching. It applies across the board in any and all situations where rights are in conflict. That's why organizations like the Police are already revising their policies.
In ANY case that is bought by anyone regarding access rights to single sex spaces, the judge is going to refer back to the EA, and the EA states categorically that sex refers to biological sex, and woman refers to biological women.
Under those circumstances, any case to allow a transwoman into a women's toilet is dead in the water from the get-go.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,647
Yes. Ciswomen have had it too good for too long. Time to stick it too them. Where "it" means lady dick.
Thermal
August Member
Well ok then.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The human species has been "cis-centric" forever, and for good reason. "Some men want the entitlement to override sex segregation whenever they want" is not a sufficiently good reason to change my mind. Sex is not analogous to skin color.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
And as I pointed out earlier, that can be reported as a "non-crime hate incident" (NCHI) which is recorded on the complainant's police record without them ever having been charged or convicted of anything... so no due process, no opportunity to defend themselves. A that police record is searchable by a CRB check which means that any member of the public, including any prospective employer, will see this NCHI.
This is an appalling state of affairs.
Thermal
August Member
Well okay then.
I don't think that's what anyone wants.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. I think in this context it very often is, but if you reframe it as men v women (when men don't generally have any skin in the game), then it can be murkier
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
And yet they did....
“the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman”.
Repeatedly so....
“Read fairly and in context, the provisions relating to single-sex services can only be interpreted by reference to biological sex.”
"The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex,”
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
Right. Only as it applies to the EA. In other applications, the definitions are outside the scope of the ruling.