FabSwingers.com forum: Definition of a woman

By *otMe66 OP Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

The legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex.

Will this ruling finally bring an end to the question, what is a woman?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex.

Will this ruling finally bring an end to the question, what is a woman? "

For once the courts a have got it right imo. I also think this is consistent with the way the vast majority of people understand the definition of a woman.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *enny PR9TV/TS
over a year ago

Southport

Well I've decided. If I can't do my time in a women's prison, I'm not doing the crime.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

Think it's a victory for woman that feel they were losing some of their hard fought for rights.

It will be interesting what arguments are put forward in opposition to this judgement.

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"The legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex.

Will this ruling finally bring an end to the question, what is a woman? "
You'd think it should but you and I both know it won't,

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *arakiss12TV/TS
over a year ago

Bedfuck

I don't consider myself a woman.

A real woman has female genitalia natural breasts, menstruate or did and can/could have give birth. If you can or have a womb you are woman.

Trans women are transexual and can't be a fully fledged woman in the that sense, without a womb.

They can pose as a woman, live a lifestyle, but they can't be classed a woman in the eyes of the law. Surgery doesn't count. It's only aesthetic.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

A common sense decision which does nor affect the legal protection given to Trans people by the 2010 Equality Act. Quite how it took them five months to decide I'm not sure !

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I doubt whether anyone outside of a few Western countries where people have a bit too much time on their hands have ever considered this to be an issue.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

Hopefully it means we can get rid of the stupid and totally useless prefixs now,

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
over a year ago

York

Many of these debates turn out to be shallow and pretty pointless, but you never know.

It's mostly a question of language and language is a volatile beast that changes over time and space and according to context.

What exactly do words like sex and gender mean?

Where semantics becomes really important is in the framing of law. I'm not sure this ruling makes it clear where trans people stand.

If I was a trans person I'd be a little worried because, despite those who have campaigned claiming it has little to do with trans rights and more to do with protecting women and standing up for the common sense meanings of words, reality is a bit more messy than that.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *arHHHTV/TS
over a year ago

Birmingham

Whatever anyone’s view, what’s clear is that todays ruling has painted a target on the back of a tiny proportion of the uk population (trans women make up 0.1% of the population according to 2021 census), and most trans women are feeling pretty vulnerable at the moment. We’re fully prepared for the hate and bigots to be out in force for a while, just take a look at the treads on twitter to see what it’s like….

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"Many of these debates turn out to be shallow and pretty pointless, but you never know.

It's mostly a question of language and language is a volatile beast that changes over time and space and according to context.

What exactly do words like sex and gender mean?

Where semantics becomes really important is in the framing of law. I'm not sure this ruling makes it clear where trans people stand.

"
According to the judgement sex means, as it always has done, 'biological sex'.

As well as protecting the rights and desires of one group, trans people here, you should not forget to do the same with the other group, the biological men and woman.

Like the judge pointed out you cannot ignore the struggle for rights woman have gone through for hundreds of years.

So now it's important to protect the rights of all groups, not the minority or the majority but everyone.

To protect woman, unfortunately you have to identify what women actually are and that's whats happened today.

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otMe66 OP Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

"Many of these debates turn out to be shallow and pretty pointless, but you never know.

It's mostly a question of language and language is a volatile beast that changes over time and space and according to context.

What exactly do words like sex and gender mean?

Where semantics becomes really important is in the framing of law. I'm not sure this ruling makes it clear where trans people stand.

Semantics is exactly the issue.

It became far too easy to play the “what is X” game, a kind of dull intellectual nitpicking that reminds of a child repeatedly asking “why?” until the answer becomes “because it is”.

We have rules and standards to help us communicate and understand each other, break those rules and you break society. Weights and measures are a perfect example, we know we are taking the correct dosage of medicine, creating the same outcome by following instructions in food recipes, chemical manufacturing etc. Those measures are a social construct, the word “woman” is no different. It too is a social construct one with biological, and legal foundations, yet, it came under attack from semantic games. Unfortunately we have had and still have very weak people in power who would rather not face into hard topics for fear of being unpopular.

I still find the idea that this needed a court to tell some people what a woman is, mind boggling.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otbeefandonionsCouple
over a year ago

Bathgate

"Whatever anyone’s view, what’s clear is that todays ruling has painted a target on the back of a tiny proportion of the uk population (trans women make up 0.1% of the population according to 2021 census), and most trans women are feeling pretty vulnerable at the moment. We’re fully prepared for the hate and bigots to be out in force for a while, just take a look at the treads on twitter to see what it’s like…."

Twitter is a breeding ground for keyboard warriors and hate, it's most definitely not a general cross section of society.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
over a year ago

York

"To protect woman, unfortunately you have to identify what women actually are and that's whats happened today."

Doesn't this imply that you think that trans women are a threat?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *reyToTheFairiesWoman
over a year ago

Carlisle usually

If it means my incredibly muscular, penis having transmasculine partner has to piss in the women's sink and chill in women's prisons if he ever breaks the law, who am I to argue?

It's a fucking travesty 💜

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
over a year ago

York

"Semantics is exactly the issue.

It became far too easy to play the “what is X” game, a kind of dull intellectual nitpicking that reminds of a child repeatedly asking “why?” until the answer becomes “because it is”.

I still find the idea that this needed a court to tell some people what a woman is, mind boggling."

I understand that reactionary snowflakes will see this as a battle won in their rather baffling language war but what are the practical implications?

What changes beyond linguistic ones will come about and why will you welcome them?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"To protect woman, unfortunately you have to identify what women actually are and that's whats happened today.

Doesn't this imply that you think that trans women are a threat?"

I’m doubtful many men find trans women a threat.

It seems like there are a fair few women who find having men in their personal spaces like changing rooms and toilets threatening.

And I imagine it’s quite threatening if you are a female boxer trying to make your way in the sport and a man is punching you in the face.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
over a year ago

York

"I’m doubtful many men find trans women a threat."

I'm not doubtful that many trans women find some men a threat.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
over a year ago

York

To be fair I can see that there are problems in sport.

I'm not sure what the answers are but different categories are already used to try to level the playing field so it shouldn't be impossible to work out a solution.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"To protect woman, unfortunately you have to identify what women actually are and that's whats happened today.

Doesn't this imply that you think that trans women are a threat?"
Not at all, I'm talking about protecting the rights of woman, not woman themselves.

You are trying to put words in my mouth and using linguistic deflection to suit your narrative,

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"Semantics is exactly the issue.

It became far too easy to play the “what is X” game, a kind of dull intellectual nitpicking that reminds of a child repeatedly asking “why?” until the answer becomes “because it is”.

I still find the idea that this needed a court to tell some people what a woman is, mind boggling.

I understand that reactionary snowflakes will see this as a battle won in their rather baffling language war but what are the practical implications?

What changes beyond linguistic ones will come about and why will you welcome them?

"
Why do you use language to be provocative and insulting? Calling anyone snowflakes is not making your argument stronger, why do that then? Would you be accepting of others using derogatory terms towards trans people?

As the baffling language war you speak of, I cannot see biological woman calling for trans woman to utilise prefixes that are not necessary for them. I can however see woman being told they must use a prefix to describe themselves. So if their is a language war its only being fought from one side,

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
over a year ago

York

"To protect woman, unfortunately you have to identify what women actually are and that's whats happened today.

Doesn't this imply that you think that trans women are a threat?

Not at all, I'm talking about protecting the rights of woman, not woman themselves.

You are trying to put words in my mouth and using linguistic deflection to suit your narrative,

Mrs x"

The words you wrote were "to protect women" not "to protect the rights of women". I'm was just going on the words you actually used not putting words in your mouth.

But if you meant to say to protect the rights of women that clarifies things, thank you.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"To protect woman, unfortunately you have to identify what women actually are and that's whats happened today.

Doesn't this imply that you think that trans women are a threat?"

Biological men will always be a threat to Biological women.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *reyToTheFairiesWoman
over a year ago

Carlisle usually

I'm never quite sure where the human right to only compete against a certain demographic comes from as a requirement.

But at least now if someone faces a thousand competitors the already small chance of one of them being trans is now removed.

A true battle for justice and rights has been fought 💜

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"To protect woman, unfortunately you have to identify what women actually are and that's whats happened today.

Doesn't this imply that you think that trans women are a threat?

Not at all, I'm talking about protecting the rights of woman, not woman themselves.

You are trying to put words in my mouth and using linguistic deflection to suit your narrative,

Mrs x

The words you wrote were "to protect women" not "to protect the rights of women". I'm was just going on the words you actually used not putting words in your mouth.

But if you meant to say to protect the rights of women that clarifies things, thank you."
If you read my other posts I made reference to the judge talking about protecting the hard fought for rights of woman, I just assumed others would know I was talking about the 'physical' protection of anyone but I'll try and be more specific,

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"To protect woman, unfortunately you have to identify what women actually are and that's whats happened today.

Doesn't this imply that you think that trans women are a threat?

Biological men will always be a threat to Biological women. "
Men and woman, everyone, can be a threat to others.

Do you think couldn't be a threat to you?

If someone wants to do harm to someone else they normally can. Bad people do bad things, not just men or woman.

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ildTimes.Man
over a year ago

Wherever I May Roam

The fact this had to go to the supreme court to clarify what 99% of people already know is mind boggling. 🥪

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
over a year ago

York

"Why do you use language to be provocative and insulting? Calling anyone snowflakes is not making your argument stronger, why do that then?"

I'm simply reflecting the language that many reactionary people use when talking to progressives.

As I said before much of this is about language and reactionary people tend to be extremely sensitive about language yet complain about anyone talking about the language they use. So using the term snowflake is about pointing out their hypocrisy. It's slightly cruel but I am a sadist.

"As the baffling language war you speak of, I cannot see biological woman calling for trans woman to utilise prefixes that are not necessary for them. I can however see woman being told they must use a prefix to describe themselves. So if their is a language war its only being fought from one side,"

But you are using the prefixes biological and trans (quite correctly I will add). But if trans women aren't women as this ruling indicates then presumably it's incorrect to call trans women trans women. It's this kind of linguistic gymnastics that I find baffling.

To me language is a tool nothing more.

Forgive me if I come across as pedantic, pompous and rude but I care passionately about protecting vulnerable people and at the moment some of the most vulnerable people in society are the tiny number of trans people.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"To protect woman, unfortunately you have to identify what women actually are and that's whats happened today.

Doesn't this imply that you think that trans women are a threat?

Biological men will always be a threat to Biological women. Men and woman, everyone, can be a threat to others.

Do you think couldn't be a threat to you?

If someone wants to do harm to someone else they normally can. Bad people do bad things, not just men or woman.

Mrs x"

As a probability biological men are a far greater threat to biological women than the other round.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The fact this had to go to the supreme court to clarify what 99% of people already know is mind boggling. 🥪"

First World problems.🤷‍♂️

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
over a year ago

York

"Biological men will always be a threat to Biological women. "

Always?

Do you chain yourself up at night?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ildTimes.Man
over a year ago

Wherever I May Roam

"I'm never quite sure where the human right to only compete against a certain demographic comes from as a requirement.

But at least now if someone faces a thousand competitors the already small chance of one of them being trans is now removed.

A true battle for justice and rights has been fought 💜"

So if Tyson Fury suddenly claimed he was a women you'd be ok with him fighting in women's boxing? ...🙄

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Biological men will always be a threat to Biological women.

Always?

Do you chain yourself up at night?"

🤦

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
over a year ago

London

Semantics is exactly the issue.

It became far too easy to play the “what is X” game, a kind of dull intellectual nitpicking that reminds of a child repeatedly asking “why?” until the answer becomes “because it is”.

I still find the idea that this needed a court to tell some people what a woman is, mind boggling."

Exactly!

One of the first question that pupils get asked in philosophy courses is "Define a chair". If you ask for the definition of a word and keep nitpicking, you can show how difficult it is to define a word.

Unfortunately, this has been used as a debating tactic by people to block discussions around certain topics. It's very similar to how some people go around asking everyone to define "woke".

End of the day, being a man or woman has many legal implications. This means we as a society must agree upon a definition. Just waving the hands around and saying "words are just social constructs" doesn't help anyone.

If there is no legal implication, then sure. People can define words anyway they want as long as they can convey the meaning to whoever they are communicating with.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *hirleyMan
over a year ago

Wine bar

"I'm never quite sure where the human right to only compete against a certain demographic comes from as a requirement.

But at least now if someone faces a thousand competitors the already small chance of one of them being trans is now removed.

A true battle for justice and rights has been fought 💜"

Such is the way with identity politics. Tendency to be inconsequential

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *uddy laneMan
over a year ago

dudley

At last a judge acting under common law carves it in stone.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"Why do you use language to be provocative and insulting? Calling anyone snowflakes is not making your argument stronger, why do that then?

I'm simply reflecting the language that many reactionary people use when talking to progressives.

To me language is a tool nothing more.

"
I use 'biological' because that's from the actual decision. You are also a bit mixed up when you say that because trans woman are not woman then maybe we shouldn't call them trans woman, so what should we call them. They are not woman because of the circumstances of their birth and have 'transitioned' from their identity at birth, so they are 'trans wpman", they just aren't women.

The decision is based upon the historical, scientific description of the sexes. It does nothing to remove any rights or protections of those in the trans community, as they are protected in anti discrimination and equality legislation.

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icolerobbieCouple
over a year ago

Walsall

I wonder if jk Rowling will now get un-cancelled?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"To protect woman, unfortunately you have to identify what women actually are and that's whats happened today.

Doesn't this imply that you think that trans women are a threat?

Biological men will always be a threat to Biological women. Men and woman, everyone, can be a threat to others.

Do you think couldn't be a threat to you?

If someone wants to do harm to someone else they normally can. Bad people do bad things, not just men or woman.

Mrs x

As a probability biological men are a far greater threat to biological women than the other round."
Only the bad ones,

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *reyToTheFairiesWoman
over a year ago

Carlisle usually

"I'm never quite sure where the human right to only compete against a certain demographic comes from as a requirement.

But at least now if someone faces a thousand competitors the already small chance of one of them being trans is now removed.

A true battle for justice and rights has been fought 💜

So if Tyson Fury suddenly claimed he was a women you'd be ok with him fighting in women's boxing? ...🙄"

If Tyson Fury went through the years of living on female hormones, the surgery, and the general mental and emotional trauma on top of all the physical, I doubt they'd stand much of a chance after that. Especially well into his forties at that point with all the extra oestrogens.

And, did you know, you don't actually have to compete if you don't want to fight your opponent 💜

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *reyToTheFairiesWoman
over a year ago

Carlisle usually

"I wonder if jk Rowling will now get un-cancelled?

I'm pretty sure the people that cancelled her are looking for how to double cancel someone 💜

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
over a year ago

York

"End of the day, being a man or woman has many legal implications. This means we as a society must agree upon a definition. Just waving the hands around and saying "words are just social constructs" doesn't help anyone."

But we end up with indefinite recursion because legal definitions are themselves written in words.

Informal languages are by definition ambiguous so we need to constantly discuss meaning and try to contextualize things.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

But we end up with indefinite recursion because legal definitions are themselves written in words.

Informal languages are by definition ambiguous so we need to constantly discuss meaning and try to contextualize things. "
Why are there almost 7 billion humans on the planet? How did we get to this point and how did that happen before language or the written word?

The answers simple but everyone seems to over look it.

So how has this happened to our species?

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

One thing is certain. The patriarchy will welcome this decision.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
over a year ago

York

"Why are there almost 7 billion humans on the planet? How did we get to this point and how did that happen before language or the written word?

The answers simple but everyone seems to over look it.

So how has this happened to our species?

Mrs x"

Sex.

But not by the meaning of the word in the recent legal context.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I wonder if jk Rowling will now get un-cancelled?

I'm pretty sure the people that cancelled her are looking for how to double cancel someone 💜"

Worth remembering that JKR spoke up in support of an anti-trans activist whose rallies were supported by real life sieg heiling Nazis, and is a renown voice of extremist hate. At that point JKR lost any credibility with me.

You have to take a look around at your fellow travellers and question who you associate with, and are you enabling their hate. JKR failed that test.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ophieslutTV/TS
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Central

How do you personally define biological sex? It's not always as simple to determine sex as some very binary thinking people try to make it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"Why are there almost 7 billion humans on the planet? How did we get to this point and how did that happen before language or the written word?

The answers simple but everyone seems to over look it.

So how has this happened to our species?

Mrs x

Sex.

But not by the meaning of the word in the recent legal context."
You are almost there. It's our species instead ability to see others of the opposite sex and what we need to do to reproduce.

If we relied on language or the written word to seek a definition beforehand then we might not have been so successful.

But we didn't, men know what woman are, woman know what men are, even those that don't speak the same language and they didn't need a dictionary or someone asking them if they were sure about, srx or gender. They just knew.

But now we are a lot smarter, brighter, more 'progressive' than we were and yet we seem so much more stupid. But we aren't are we, we know the difference and we can tell this at a very basic level. If you think about it, it's the only reason for our existence, to pass on our genetic code, we'd be fucked if we were shit at this. Luckily we aren't, so this decision just clarifies what we know, have known, since the dawn of our species.

It's got nothing to do with the need for a definition, it's hard wired into us as a species to know, just the same as most other animals.

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
over a year ago

York

"You are also a bit mixed up when you say that because trans woman are not woman then maybe we shouldn't call them trans woman, so what should we call them."

I'm obviously in agreement that they should be called trans women but some people already say that they aren't trans women.

"It does nothing to remove any rights or protections of those in the trans community, as they are protected in anti discrimination and equality legislation."

Technically perhaps but in reality I am pretty sure things are going to get a lot lot worse for trans people.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ildTimes.Man
over a year ago

Wherever I May Roam

"I'm never quite sure where the human right to only compete against a certain demographic comes from as a requirement.

But at least now if someone faces a thousand competitors the already small chance of one of them being trans is now removed.

A true battle for justice and rights has been fought 💜

So if Tyson Fury suddenly claimed he was a women you'd be ok with him fighting in women's boxing? ...🙄

And, did you know, you don't actually have to compete if you don't want to fight your opponent 💜"

So a biological women has to pull out to not get battered by a biological male ..that's some choice! Doesn't seem very fair does it. Seems much fairer that you just compete against your biological sex competitors 🥪

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ildTimes.Man
over a year ago

Wherever I May Roam

"How do you personally define biological sex? It's not always as simple to determine sex as some very binary thinking people try to make it. "

XX or XY Chromosomes...pretty easy

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
over a year ago

York

Mrs x nice post but I think you've completely missed my point about legal language being ambiguous.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *reyToTheFairiesWoman
over a year ago

Carlisle usually

"So a biological women has to pull out to not get battered by a biological male ..that's some choice! Doesn't seem very fair does it. Seems much fairer that you just compete against your biological sex competitors 🥪"

If someone doesn't want to fight someone that they've been placed in the same category as, they don't have to. They can go engage in competitions they feel safe from harm in.

And you know as well as I do that this is never what the argument is about. When has this ever actually happened?

Most sports have mixed gender categories. The majority of trans athletes are distinctly mediocre and closer to the middle and back of the pack. The supposed blatant benefits of being born one way and going through a fucktonne of trauma don't seem all that apparent in the actual results even if you are dim enough to actually believe that that is what this debate is about.

Already marginalised people are being pushed even further down, excluded and made a silly puppet show out of as if they're the enemy.

They're not the enemy. They're just other humans trying to live their lives as themselves. They're not harming you. Why do you want to make other people's lives even harder? 💜

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *rHotNottsMan
over a year ago

Dubai & Nottingham

I think I agree with this. I’m a big believer in diversity and equality, everyone should be able to express themselves however they like and not be judged or treated badly.

Women enjoy a much greater sexual orientation and gender fluidy already than men do , I can kiss and hug each other and no one bats an eyelid, they can go out in jeans and a T-shirt wearing no make-up, and nobody thinks they are weird. Guys should have the same treatment , but they are still guys.

But wanting to be called a woman , compete against women, access changing rooms and toilets where women are getting undressed…. That should be based on a medical diagnosis, not a choice.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *smiaTV/TS
over a year ago

Ilkeston

If someone doesn't want to fight someone that they've been placed in the same category as, they don't have to. They can go engage in competitions they feel safe from harm in.

And you know as well as I do that this is never what the argument is about. When has this ever actually happened?

Already marginalised people are being pushed even further down, excluded and made a silly puppet show out of as if they're the enemy.

They're not the enemy. They're just other humans trying to live their lives as themselves. They're not harming you. Why do you want to make other people's lives even harder? 💜"

Thank you for the kind words it really means a lot. Given the grief and threats the whole trans community experience whether online or day to day life it really makes a huge difference seeing allies.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I'm never quite sure where the human right to only compete against a certain demographic comes from as a requirement.

But at least now if someone faces a thousand competitors the already small chance of one of them being trans is now removed.

A true battle for justice and rights has been fought 💜

So if Tyson Fury suddenly claimed he was a women you'd be ok with him fighting in women's boxing? ...🙄

And, did you know, you don't actually have to compete if you don't want to fight your opponent 💜

This all sounds pretty good.

We just have one competition for everyone in all sports and the men win everything.

Sooner or later the women don’t bother at all and they can stay at home and knit and play the piano.

Just like the 19th Century.

Progress!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"Mrs x nice post but I think you've completely missed my point about legal language being ambiguous.

"
Legal language isn't ambiguous, normally it's very specific.

Take murder, It's the unlawful killing of a reasoning being with malice forethought. Very specific requiring a number of elements all of which must be satisfied to prove the offence.

People may not necessarily understand the terms but that shouldn't be mistaken for ambiguity.

Land Law is guilty of this but it's still specific, you just need to speak the language. Take owning a freehold property, you hold '...and fees simple, absolute in possession'.

When trying to simplify the law in 1990 through tge introduction of the Courts and Lagal Services Act, it was tge lawyers who did not want this change because if the law was simple there would be no need to pay lawyers the fees they charge.

So not simple, not ambiguous by intent but normally quite specific.

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atnip make me purrWoman
over a year ago

Reading

Only love here

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *exagon9Man
over a year ago

Bristol

Only love here"

🩷❤️🧡💛💚🩵💙💜

Amen

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
over a year ago

York

"Legal language isn't ambiguous, normally it's very specific.

Take murder, It's the unlawful killing of a reasoning being with malice forethought. Very specific requiring a number of elements all of which must be satisfied to prove the offence.

People may not necessarily understand the terms but that shouldn't be mistaken for ambiguity.

Land Law is guilty of this but it's still specific, you just need to speak the language. Take owning a freehold property, you hold '...and fees simple, absolute in possession'.

So not simple, not ambiguous by intent but normally quite specific.

Mrs x"

I could ramble on and on about the ambiguity of language, linguistic philosophy, contract theory and more. I could tease apart something like "the unlawful killing of a reasoning being with malice forethought" for months on end. I actually worked on formal linguistics for a while.

But this is all tangental to the topic under discussion here.

In essence legal language attempts to not be ambiguous but it is.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ggdrasil66Man
over a year ago

Saltdean

How very reassuring to see that there are still men and women. I mean there always has been right? What I can’t understand is why we had to have this reassurance in the first place?

Yes, there are trans people, god bless em. In the future I hope that they will get their own facilities, maybe their own categories in sports etc, and prisons for those who break the law? Damnit I would love to see a trans Olympics. No one can be sure what will happen in the future.

But as far as physical sex is concerned, there is man and there is woman, that is it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"One thing is certain. The patriarchy will welcome this decision.

Not really as it's a defeat for men who want to take away women's rights.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *reyToTheFairiesWoman
over a year ago

Carlisle usually

"One thing is certain. The patriarchy will welcome this decision.

Not really as it's a defeat for men who want to take away women's rights. "

...

How?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"Legal language isn't ambiguous, normally it's very specific.

Take murder, It's the unlawful killing of a reasoning being with malice forethought. Very specific requiring a number of elements all of which must be satisfied to prove the offence.

People may not necessarily understand the terms but that shouldn't be mistaken for ambiguity.

Land Law is guilty of this but it's still specific, you just need to speak the language. Take owning a freehold property, you hold '...and fees simple, absolute in possession'.

So not simple, not ambiguous by intent but normally quite specific.

Mrs x

But this is all tangental to the topic under discussion here.

In essence legal language attempts to not be ambiguous but it is.

"
It's only ambiguous to those who don't know the language of law, it's the same with medicine. To those that do its quite clear.

But going back to the issue in question, there is no need for language or linguistic expertise here.

Men and women instinctively know what the other is with no explanation. It's only with medical advances in the last hundred years we're we've had to define what a trans person is. Before the 1930's this was not even considered a viable option. It's not a reason to seek clarification to what a man or woman is, a new definition is not needed her and should never have been attempted, it is what it is and always has been,

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
over a year ago

London

But we end up with indefinite recursion because legal definitions are themselves written in words.

Informal languages are by definition ambiguous so we need to constantly discuss meaning and try to contextualize things. "

If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, then there is no such thing as illegal nor immoral, including r&pe and murder. Are you willing to reach that conclusion?

The problem with relativists is that they don't understand relativism is descriptive, not prescriptive. At the point where we came up with a legal framework, we went past relativism and started drawing lines around meanings. If a word is part of the law, the word must have a meaning that people agree upon.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *reyToTheFairiesWoman
over a year ago

Carlisle usually

"Men and women instinctively know what the other is with no explanation. It's only with medical advances in the last hundred years we're we've had to define what a trans person is. Before the 1930's this was not even considered a viable option. It's not a reason to seek clarification to what a man or woman is, a new definition is not needed her and should never have been attempted, it is what it is and always has been,

Mrs x"

A quick Google on historical evidence of trans and non-binary prior to the 20th century comes up with:

In ancient Sumer and Greece, male priests, the Gala and Galli respectively, were associated with goddesses and often crossed gender boundaries in their religious practices. They wore feminine attire, adopted female names, and sometimes even castrated themselves.

The Roman Emperor Elagabalus (203-222 AD) is considered a notable figure in the history of transgender identity. He is recorded to have identified as a woman, sought to modify his body, and even sought female genitalia surgically.

Archaeological findings in the Mediterranean region suggest the existence of "third sex" figures depicted in drawings and figurines. These figures often displayed a combination of male and female characteristics or lacked clearly defined sex characteristics, indicating a broader understanding of gender in ancient societies.

💜

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
over a year ago

York

These arguments are so simplistic and reductive.

If law was unambiguous then there wouldn't be any need for Supreme Court rulings.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

Mrs x

A quick Google on historical evidence of trans and non-binary prior to the 20th century comes up with:

💜"
None of that is serial reassignment. The first medical sex change occurred in the 1930's.

I'm not denigrating those who feel they were not who they were born as historically but factually it couldn't even be attempted until the 30s.

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
over a year ago

London

"These arguments are so simplistic and reductive.

If law was unambiguous then there wouldn't be any need for Supreme Court rulings. "

It's not 100% unambiguous. But it must be made as unambiguous as possible. Saying that "women are eligible for benefits" and then not defining women would imply either no one is eligible for benefits or everyone is eligible for benefits.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *orny PTMan
over a year ago

Peterborough

This is great news as this is clarity.

As the joke goes 'The number of testicular injuries in womens' sports has gone from nil to a ridiculous amount'

It is now at the correct amount NONE.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *orny PTMan
over a year ago

Peterborough

"One thing is certain. The patriarchy will welcome this decision.

Not really as it's a defeat for men who want to take away women's rights.

...

How?"

I think this was sarcasm at play.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *orny PTMan
over a year ago

Peterborough

"How do you personally define biological sex? It's not always as simple to determine sex as some very binary thinking people try to make it. "

Human mating is a binary process as auto-genesis and splitting a whole body in half is not the norm.

Intersex is a real thing, but is not very common.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"How do you personally define biological sex? It's not always as simple to determine sex as some very binary thinking people try to make it.

Human mating is a binary process as auto-genesis and splitting a whole body in half is not the norm.

Intersex is a real thing, but is not very common."
This,

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ophieslutTV/TS
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Central

"How do you personally define biological sex? It's not always as simple to determine sex as some very binary thinking people try to make it.

XX or XY Chromosomes...pretty easy "

They hadn't stated that, in the ruling, had they? Babies are born and not typically given tests of their chromosomes and there are many people who are often put into a position that's not how they come to view themselves. Children may have ambiguous characteristics,Internal sex organs for both genders or variations that aren't as black and white or binary as some people want.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *reyToTheFairiesWoman
over a year ago

Carlisle usually

"None of that is serial reassignment. The first medical sex change occurred in the 1930's.

I'm not denigrating those who feel they were not who they were born as historically but factually it couldn't even be attempted until the 30s.

Mrs x"

But, a medical sex change doesn't actually change their sex according to law or your own perception. Yet still you accept the fact that trans people do exist presently even if you don't accept their gender or agree with their perception of reality.

How is it different to using makeup and clothing to present as the opposite gender, apart from the vast amount of physical trauma? The ancient priests who castrated themselves have gone further than many trans people today have gone. And none of them were or are able to reproduce with what they weren't born with.

There are a thousand stories and folklores including people presenting as the other throughout various countries and cultures outside of those particular examples.

If they could pass well enough to live their lives as the other, how were they any less transgender than those today?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ophieslutTV/TS
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Central

"How do you personally define biological sex? It's not always as simple to determine sex as some very binary thinking people try to make it.

Human mating is a binary process as auto-genesis and splitting a whole body in half is not the norm.

Intersex is a real thing, but is not very common."

Things are quite complex though, including Androgen insensitivity syndrome, one of many different presentations of what some want to emphasise as people being either/or.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"One thing is certain. The patriarchy will welcome this decision.

Not really as it's a defeat for men who want to take away women's rights.

...

How?

I think this was sarcasm at play."

Not at all.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"None of that is serial reassignment. The first medical sex change occurred in the 1930's.

I'm not denigrating those who feel they were not who they were born as historically but factually it couldn't even be attempted until the 30s.

Mrs x

There are a thousand stories and folklores including people presenting as the other throughout various countries and cultures outside of those particular examples.

If they could pass well enough to live their lives as the other, how were they any less transgender than those today?"
I am not saying anything about anyone wanting to change their assigned birth. I am not denying their gender, they are transgender.

Everyone's free to choose to do whatever they want.

But this case today is about the definition of what it is to be a woman. Something that's only been debated very recently and only because of the existence of transgender people and their desire to be called a woman or a man because they are not, they are a trans woman or a trans man and I have no problem with that.

As for folklore, you may be right but that's nothing to hang an argument on,when there are stories about werewolves, vampires, mermaids and a host of other fantastical creatures. You only have to look at Hinduism or Egyptian hieroglyphics to see a whole array of freaky combinations of man and beast but this doesn't mean they actually existed.

So it's not a campaign against trans, the judge even said this, saying they are still protected under the law just like everyone else. All today has done has clarified what a woman is.

This is obviously important to lots of woman as it was woman who brought this case to court,

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *resesse_MelioremCouple
over a year ago

Border of London

What's most important is to remember that, wherever you stand on this issue generally, trans people need:

The right to express and be what they wish.

Protection from discrimination.

Protection from harm.

Respect from everyone for their choices, or at least a tolerance and a respect for their right to choose their own path in life.

Perhaps now we can move on from confusing trans women's issues with women's issues, and start looking at how to protect trans women as trans women. Shouldn't that suit everyone?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *orny PTMan
over a year ago

Peterborough

"One thing is certain. The patriarchy will welcome this decision.

Not really as it's a defeat for men who want to take away women's rights.

...

How?

I think this was sarcasm at play.

Not at all."

My bad.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"What's most important is to remember that, wherever you stand on this issue generally, trans people need:

The right to express and be what they wish.

Protection from discrimination.

Protection from harm.

Respect from everyone for their choices, or at least a tolerance and a respect for their right to choose their own path in life.

Perhaps now we can move on from confusing trans women's issues with women's issues, and start looking at how to protect trans women as trans women. Shouldn't that suit everyone?"

Trans rights are protected by the 2010 Equality Act, as are Womens Rights. The decision today simply restated that facts.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ildTimes.Man
over a year ago

Wherever I May Roam

If someone doesn't want to fight someone that they've been placed in the same category as, they don't have to. They can go engage in competitions they feel safe from harm in.

And you know as well as I do that this is never what the argument is about. When has this ever actually happened?

Already marginalised people are being pushed even further down, excluded and made a silly puppet show out of as if they're the enemy.

They're not the enemy. They're just other humans trying to live their lives as themselves. They're not harming you. Why do you want to make other people's lives even harder? 💜"

Most sports don't have mixed gender categories, wrong again....

Why should a women be forced to fight a biological man? Oh if you don't like it just quit, just pull out the sport you've made your career because a man wants to compete against women...That's the reason we have separate categories in most sports, men are physically stronger and faster.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"What's most important is to remember that, wherever you stand on this issue generally, trans people need:

The right to express and be what they wish.

Protection from discrimination.

Protection from harm.

Respect from everyone for their choices, or at least a tolerance and a respect for their right to choose their own path in life.

Perhaps now we can move on from confusing trans women's issues with women's issues, and start looking at how to protect trans women as trans women. Shouldn't that suit everyone?"
Said much better than me, Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
over a year ago

London

"What's most important is to remember that, wherever you stand on this issue generally, trans people need:

The right to express and be what they wish.

Protection from discrimination.

Protection from harm.

Respect from everyone for their choices, or at least a tolerance and a respect for their right to choose their own path in life.

Perhaps now we can move on from confusing trans women's issues with women's issues, and start looking at how to protect trans women as trans women. Shouldn't that suit everyone?"

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ophieslutTV/TS
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Central

I think we still have to acknowledge that biological sex isn't the simple black and white matter that many seem to want it to be.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"I think we still have to acknowledge that biological sex isn't the simple black and white matter that many seem to want it to be. "
For 99% of the world's population it is though,

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *exagon9Man
over a year ago

Bristol

"What's most important is to remember that, wherever you stand on this issue generally, trans people need:

The right to express and be what they wish.

Protection from discrimination.

Protection from harm.

Respect from everyone for their choices, or at least a tolerance and a respect for their right to choose their own path in life.

Perhaps now we can move on from confusing trans women's issues with women's issues, and start looking at how to protect trans women as trans women. Shouldn't that suit everyone?

Trans rights are protected by the 2010 Equality Act, as are Womens Rights. The decision today simply restated that facts."

I recognise we are not going to agree on this but I respectfully request you stop continuing to claim this. Asserting this doesn’t make it true. Trans rights are now not protected to the same extent, the status of a trans person has been eroded by placing an onus on biological sex. The Supreme Court judgement recognises as much.

Considering the Equality Act 2010, the Court concluded that it was necessary to understand ‘sex’ as meaning ‘biological sex’ throughout the legislation.

Although ‘biological sex’ is difficult to define, given the competing and sometimes conflicting components of biology which are often considered to constitute ‘sex’, this did not trouble the Court.

The Court simplistically defines ‘biological sex’ as “the sex of a person at birth”. This means, presumably, sex as initially recorded on one’s birth certificate - a matter of documentation and presumption, rather than actual biology.

It said, “to reach any other conclusion would turn the foundational definition of sex on its head”, and “diminish the protection available to individuals and groups against [sex discrimination]”.

The Supreme Court decision opens by pitting two groups against each other - on one hand, all women, and on the other, trans people. This insidious framing sets the tone for a judgment which uncritically relies on anti-trans narratives.

The judgment cites extensively from so-called ‘gender critical’ campaign groups and academics. Not a single trans person was allowed to speak before the Court.

The judgment goes out of its way to give special thanks to Ben Cooper KC - acting on behalf of Sex Matters, who were allowed to intervene in the case - stating that he “gave focus and structure to the argument” that sex should be given its ‘biological meaning’. Cooper has previously acted on behalf of gender critical activists Maya Forstater and Allison Bailey.

In its analysis of the Equality Act 2010, the Court placed great emphasis on certain provisions, claiming that a definition of sex which included trans people holding a gender recognition certificate would be inconsistent. One element the Court relied on to make this argument was that of pregnancy. The Equality Act 2010 refers frequently to pregnant women, but because trans women cannot get pregnant, but some trans men can, by referring to ‘women’, it says Parliament must have intended ‘woman’ to mean ‘biological female’, as only ‘biological females’ can become pregnant.

The Court also emphasises the idea that to include trans women within women as a class would render it a “heterogenous” grouping, rather than the “distinct” group of biological women and girls with “their shared biology leading to shared disadvantage and discrimination faced by them as a distinct group”.

By basing misogyny in women’s ‘shared biology’, rather than shared oppression under political norms (I.e. patriarchy), the Supreme Court relies on incredibly conservative ideas about gender as a naturalised phenomenon. A range of peer reviewed research demonstrates that trans women experience misogynistic discrimination as much as, if not more than, many other women and individuals experience it more forcefully precisely because they are a small minority.

The decision seems to make it lawful to exclude trans people from single-sex spaces, under any circumstances. Previously, it was thought that to exclude trans people from a single-sex space, the exclusion had to be shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Now, the exclusion is automatic for trans people trying to access a space which does not coincide with their ‘biological sex’ (sex assigned at birth). Instead, the Court explains that the exclusion is intended to additionally prohibit trans people from accessing spaces aligned with their ‘biological sex’.

This rather lets anti-trans activists have their cake and eat it too, forcing trans people out of public life.

Giving the example of a counselling session for female victims of sexual assault, the Court determines that, as sex means ‘biological sex’, trans women would automatically be excluded from attendance. It explains the group might also choose to exclude trans men, if proportionate, for example, if “reasonable objection is taken to their presence, for example, because the gender reassignment process has given them a male appearance”.

Lots of people argue against the exclusion of trans women from women’s toilets by pointing to trans men. Surely, they ask, you don’t want a bearded trans man using the women’s loo? But the argument of the Court shows the danger of relying on these rhetorical traps, which also enforce gendered norms about how people should look to use certain toilets. Judgements about who is permissible based on aesthetics are a fairly slippery slope towards some nasty political outcomes, as we are currently seeing in a number of other countries, including the USA.

The Supreme Court, however, claims that this ruling does not lessen trans people’s rights. Trans people can still claim discrimination based on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, regardless of their sex.

The Court also states that whilst trans women can still be protected from discrimination based on sex, on the grounds of perception. That is, that whilst they are considered male for the purpose of the Act, they can still be discriminated against by someone perceiving them as female.

This does, however, raise the possibility of a defence that your discriminator knew you were ‘biologically male’, so they couldn’t have been perceiving you as female. However, it is likely that this claim could then be framed as discrimination based on gender reassignment.

More worryingly, the Court acknowledges that this removes Equal Pay Protection from trans women with a Gender Recognition Certificate, who will no longer be able to claim that they are being underpaid compared to male colleagues.

However, the Court justifies this on the basis that the right is simply being transferred to a different group of trans people - trans men with a Gender Recognition Certificate - who will now be able to bring such claims against male colleagues. This is even though trans women remain significantly underpaid, even more so than their cis female colleagues.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *hagTonightMan
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.

They got it right, sunak said this 2 years ago too.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"What's most important is to remember that, wherever you stand on this issue generally, trans people need:

The right to express and be what they wish.

Protection from discrimination.

Protection from harm.

Respect from everyone for their choices, or at least a tolerance and a respect for their right to choose their own path in life.

Perhaps now we can move on from confusing trans women's issues with women's issues, and start looking at how to protect trans women as trans women. Shouldn't that suit everyone?

Trans rights are protected by the 2010 Equality Act, as are Womens Rights. The decision today simply restated that facts.

Considering the Equality Act 2010, the Court concluded that it was necessary to understand ‘sex’ as meaning ‘biological sex’ throughout the legislation.

The judgment cites extensively from so-called ‘gender critical’ campaign groups and academics. Not a single trans person was allowed to speak before the Court.

This rather lets anti-trans activists have their cake and eat it too, forcing trans people out of public life.

This is an uncredited Copy and paste from the website QueerAsF. It contains multiple falsehoods and misrepresentations and in my opinion can be safely disregarded as an extremely partisan interpretation.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *exagon9Man
over a year ago

Bristol

"I think we still have to acknowledge that biological sex isn't the simple black and white matter that many seem to want it to be. For 99% of the world's population it is though,

Mrs x"

With respect, that doesn’t make them right, whatever percentage. There is a consensus in contemporary biological research that is is not binary. Indeed, if you ask a biologist about sex they may well ask you “which sex: genetic, hormonal, or gonadal"?

There’s a great piece from about 10 years ago in Scientific American that provides a useful overview of this, the title is “Sex redefined: The idea of two sexes is overly simplistic”, should pop up in a search. It’s a fascinating read.

The closing sentences are worth quoting: “ So if the law requires that a person is male or female, should that sex be assigned by anatomy, hormones, cells or chromosomes, and what should be done if they clash? “My feeling is that since there is not one biological parameter that takes over every other parameter, at the end of the day, gender identity seems to be the most reasonable parameter,” says Vilain [Director of the Center for Gender Based Biology, UCLA]. In other words, if you want to know whether someone is male or female, it may be best just to ask.”

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *orny PTMan
over a year ago

Peterborough

If someone doesn't want to fight someone that they've been placed in the same category as, they don't have to. They can go engage in competitions they feel safe from harm in.

And you know as well as I do that this is never what the argument is about. When has this ever actually happened?

Already marginalised people are being pushed even further down, excluded and made a silly puppet show out of as if they're the enemy.

They're not the enemy. They're just other humans trying to live their lives as themselves. They're not harming you. Why do you want to make other people's lives even harder? 💜

Most sports don't have mixed gender categories, wrong again....

Yes and boxing is weightist too. How many lightweights want to fight heavyweights? Would that be fair? Please discuss.

It's not all about pure strength, why should there be sexual divisions in sports like darts, snooker or even shooting?

This begs the question: will the fastest woman ever beat the fastest man in the marathon?

Should ther be a 3rd trans category? Maybe. Many a sport is limited by age too, under 21s, under 15s and so on. Is there is room for a new trans category? This could answer the question.

I reckon that Edward de Bono would approve of my logic.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"They got it right, sunak said this 2 years ago too."

Agree Shag

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *exagon9Man
over a year ago

Bristol

"What's most important is to remember that, wherever you stand on this issue generally, trans people need:

The right to express and be what they wish.

Protection from discrimination.

Protection from harm.

Respect from everyone for their choices, or at least a tolerance and a respect for their right to choose their own path in life.

Perhaps now we can move on from confusing trans women's issues with women's issues, and start looking at how to protect trans women as trans women. Shouldn't that suit everyone?

Trans rights are protected by the 2010 Equality Act, as are Womens Rights. The decision today simply restated that facts.

Considering the Equality Act 2010, the Court concluded that it was necessary to understand ‘sex’ as meaning ‘biological sex’ throughout the legislation.

The judgment cites extensively from so-called ‘gender critical’ campaign groups and academics. Not a single trans person was allowed to speak before the Court.

This rather lets anti-trans activists have their cake and eat it too, forcing trans people out of public life.

Well your opinion is clearly sacrosanct and above all others, as is made clear by the tone of your comments. Yes. It is copied. I am not a legal scholar. List the falsehoods then. Argue back. I have seen no argument from you just patronising statements. I would genuinely be interested to read your argument

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *orny PTMan
over a year ago

Peterborough

"None of that is serial reassignment. The first medical sex change occurred in the 1930's.

I'm not denigrating those who feel they were not who they were born as historically but factually it couldn't even be attempted until the 30s.

Mrs x

There are a thousand stories and folklores including people presenting as the other throughout various countries and cultures outside of those particular examples.

If they could pass well enough to live their lives as the other, how were they any less transgender than those today?I am not saying anything about anyone wanting to change their assigned birth. I am not denying their gender, they are transgender.

Everyone's free to choose to do whatever they want.

So it's not a campaign against trans, the judge even said this, saying they are still protected under the law just like everyone else. All today has done has clarified what a woman is.

This is obviously important to lots of woman as it was woman who brought this case to court,

Mrs x"

You cannot change your brain size, lung capacity, hip stance and bodily proportions. Finger size, muscle density, bone density and flexibitliy.

Gymnastics has men on the hoops doing the crucifix and women, ie teenage girls on the beam. Why is thay?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I think we still have to acknowledge that biological sex isn't the simple black and white matter that many seem to want it to be. For 99% of the world's population it is though,

Mrs x

For context again, Eric Valain has argued for absolutely no separation of men and women in sport. He also regards biological sex as a spectrum not a binary.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"What's most important is to remember that, wherever you stand on this issue generally, trans people need:

The right to express and be what they wish.

Protection from discrimination.

Protection from harm.

Respect from everyone for their choices, or at least a tolerance and a respect for their right to choose their own path in life.

Perhaps now we can move on from confusing trans women's issues with women's issues, and start looking at how to protect trans women as trans women. Shouldn't that suit everyone?

Trans rights are protected by the 2010 Equality Act, as are Womens Rights. The decision today simply restated that facts.

Considering the Equality Act 2010, the Court concluded that it was necessary to understand ‘sex’ as meaning ‘biological sex’ throughout the legislation.

The judgment cites extensively from so-called ‘gender critical’ campaign groups and academics. Not a single trans person was allowed to speak before the Court.

This rather lets anti-trans activists have their cake and eat it too, forcing trans people out of public life.

Why didn't you quote the source ?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *exagon9Man
over a year ago

Bristol

"What's most important is to remember that, wherever you stand on this issue generally, trans people need:

The right to express and be what they wish.

Protection from discrimination.

Protection from harm.

Respect from everyone for their choices, or at least a tolerance and a respect for their right to choose their own path in life.

Perhaps now we can move on from confusing trans women's issues with women's issues, and start looking at how to protect trans women as trans women. Shouldn't that suit everyone?

Trans rights are protected by the 2010 Equality Act, as are Womens Rights. The decision today simply restated that facts.

Considering the Equality Act 2010, the Court concluded that it was necessary to understand ‘sex’ as meaning ‘biological sex’ throughout the legislation.

The judgment cites extensively from so-called ‘gender critical’ campaign groups and academics. Not a single trans person was allowed to speak before the Court.

This rather lets anti-trans activists have their cake and eat it too, forcing trans people out of public life.

Why didn't you quote the source ? "

Forgive me, I have sinned… lol

It’s a forum on a swingers website, not a peer reviewed journal. Where’s your argument?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *exagon9Man
over a year ago

Bristol

"I think we still have to acknowledge that biological sex isn't the simple black and white matter that many seem to want it to be. For 99% of the world's population it is though,

Mrs x

For context again, Eric Valain has argued for absolutely no separation of men and women in sport. He also regards biological sex as a spectrum not a binary."

Hooray, you can read. Thanks for restating what I wrote

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *AJMLKTV/TS
over a year ago

Burley

So, a trans "woman" isn't actually a woman - who'd have thought it? Every rational person on the planet, that's who.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So, a trans "woman" isn't actually a woman - who'd have thought it? Every rational person on the planet, that's who."

Thankfully reality is being restored to public life in at least one area.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *oubleswing2019Man
over a year ago

Colchester

"There’s a great piece from about 10 years ago in Scientific American that provides a useful overview of this, the title is “Sex redefined: The idea of two sexes is overly simplistic”, should pop up in a search. It’s a fascinating read.

That actually makes a lot of sense. We can measure by various parameters and come up with different answers. Perhaps it really is just better to ask.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ellhungvweMan
over a year ago

Cheltenham

I, for one, am glad that the court has made an explicit decision. I think that for a long time politicians have failed to show clear leadership - in either direction - and we have had an extended period where vitriol and name calling by all sides has been allowed to carry on. That, for me, is a failure of politics.

I do appreciate that there are going to be people who are adversely impacted by this decision. That was always going to be the case which ever way it went. What I hope it does mean is that, once the dust has settled, we can start to have a more explicit conversation about how we want to define sex as a society moving forward rather than the current approach of gradual encroachment. If the arguments are strong enough then the law can be amended. If they aren’t, then it won’t be amended.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

That actually makes a lot of sense. We can measure by various parameters and come up with different answers. Perhaps it really is just better to ask."

So reality is subjective?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *oubleswing2019Man
over a year ago

Colchester

"So reality is subjective? "

Everything is subjective. Even science.

Science does of course aim to be objective, and that is the goal. But that goal is not immovable, because better science comes along which upends previous science (and objectivity).

In that sense perhaps it is wiser to adopt a careful position of neutrality and openness to new ideas. Reality is somewhat "plastic" (Anthony Jacquin)

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otMe66 OP Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

"So reality is subjective?

Everything is subjective. Even science.

Science does of course aim to be objective, and that is the goal. But that goal is not immovable, because better science comes along which upends previous science (and objectivity).

In that sense perhaps it is wiser to adopt a careful position of neutrality and openness to new ideas. Reality is somewhat "plastic" (Anthony Jacquin)

Relative order and shared understanding are the benchmarks of a successful society.

Blur those lines, and you risk undermining the very framework that allows it to function.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So reality is subjective?

Everything is subjective. Even science.

Science does of course aim to be objective, and that is the goal. But that goal is not immovable, because better science comes along which upends previous science (and objectivity).

In that sense perhaps it is wiser to adopt a careful position of neutrality and openness to new ideas. Reality is somewhat "plastic" (Anthony Jacquin)

That's not true at all. New information may emerge which alters the known objective fact, but at any given time reality retains its observable and demonstrable (by repetition) objective nature. At no point does what we understand as scientific reality consists of what individuals subjectively believe it to be.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I give you a glass of acid but you believe it is water. If you drink it you die. Your subjective belief has absolutely no impact on the objective reality.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"I give you a glass of acid but you believe it is water. If you drink it you die. Your subjective belief has absolutely no impact on the objective reality."
Not even if i mix it with a fruit juice?

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I give you a glass of acid but you believe it is water. If you drink it you die. Your subjective belief has absolutely no impact on the objective reality.Not even if i mix it with a fruit juice?

Mrs x"

Nooooo Mrs N, you're fruity enough.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

neverland

"Why are there almost 7 billion humans on the planet? How did we get to this point and how did that happen before language or the written word?

The answers simple but everyone seems to over look it.

So how has this happened to our species?

Mrs x

Sex.

But not by the meaning of the word in the recent legal context."

You mean sexual intercourse

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

neverland

"Why are there almost 7 billion humans on the planet? How did we get to this point and how did that happen before language or the written word?

The answers simple but everyone seems to over look it.

So how has this happened to our species?

Mrs x

Sex.

But not by the meaning of the word in the recent legal context.You are almost there. It's our species instead ability to see others of the opposite sex and what we need to do to reproduce.

If we relied on language or the written word to seek a definition beforehand then we might not have been so successful.

It's got nothing to do with the need for a definition, it's hard wired into us as a species to know, just the same as most other animals.

Mrs x"

Being the devil's advocate I can say there's an argument to this - the innate desire. Look to the animal kingdom and you'll see this desire in action regardless of biological sex (male fucking male etc). So one could argue conception is a lucky accident.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

neverland

"How do you personally define biological sex? It's not always as simple to determine sex as some very binary thinking people try to make it.

XX or XY Chromosomes...pretty easy "

Lots of discussions have proved it's not that simple. XX can present as male at birth and socialised as male and "is" male until tested at a chromosome level (and vice versa). Then there are various syndromes with the person not being xx or xy.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

neverland

"I think I agree with this. I’m a big believer in diversity and equality, everyone should be able to express themselves however they like and not be judged or treated badly.

But wanting to be called a woman , compete against women, access changing rooms and toilets where women are getting undressed…. That should be based on a medical diagnosis, not a choice.

Last paragraph: that should be based on not having a penis (ie post surgery).

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *eavenscentitCouple
over a year ago

barnstaple

"Biological men will always be a threat to Biological women.

Always?

Do you chain yourself up at night?"

Women and girls experiences of men should be taken into account, as a man you have not lived our experiences. Mansplaining does not help.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
over a year ago

London

"So reality is subjective?

Everything is subjective. Even science.

Science does of course aim to be objective, and that is the goal. But that goal is not immovable, because better science comes along which upends previous science (and objectivity).

In that sense perhaps it is wiser to adopt a careful position of neutrality and openness to new ideas. Reality is somewhat "plastic" (Anthony Jacquin)

It's a self-contradictory argument that I pointed out above. If everything is subjective, why must one adopt a careful position of neutrality. Isn't that your own subjective view? Philosophically speaking, yes I do believe in subjectivity. I believe science will never be able to break the subjectivity barrier. Even morality is subjective. As Dostoevsky's character says in the Brother's Karamazov, "If there is no God, everything is permitted"

But the society will not function if we just live our lives purely based on subjectivity. You can't have common laws without some objectivity. There is no morality when everything is subjective.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otMe66 OP Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

"I think I agree with this. I’m a big believer in diversity and equality, everyone should be able to express themselves however they like and not be judged or treated badly.

But wanting to be called a woman , compete against women, access changing rooms and toilets where women are getting undressed…. That should be based on a medical diagnosis, not a choice.

Last paragraph: that should be based on not having a penis (ie post surgery)."

Surely the last paragraph will be based on the court ruling and not if's, but's and maybe's. That was the whole point of the ruling, to remove doubt.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

neverland

"I think I agree with this. I’m a big believer in diversity and equality, everyone should be able to express themselves however they like and not be judged or treated badly.

But wanting to be called a woman , compete against women, access changing rooms and toilets where women are getting undressed…. That should be based on a medical diagnosis, not a choice.

Last paragraph: that should be based on not having a penis (ie post surgery).

Surely the last paragraph will be based on the court ruling and not if's, but's and maybe's. That was the whole point of the ruling, to remove doubt. "

I haven't read the ruling so I assumed the poster gave his opinion and I added mine

. I should have stated, not last paragraph, but accessing women's spaces. A medical diagnosis doesn't mean the penis is removed.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *arHHHTV/TS
over a year ago

Birmingham

Hey all, Ive had an eye on this thread and thought Id give a view from someone who is trans, and dont worry, this isn't going to be me banging on about trans rights here as that always causes arguments! Also, this might be a lengthy post but Ive had a night to think about it!

I wanted to offer a view of yesterday in context, and how this is just the first step in rolling back of LGBT and women's rights as a whole, and how this is being driven by the religious/conservative right.

The first step was to remove recognition and begin marginalisation of trans people, and the next will be to go after gender care - there are already proposals to stop the NHS funding any sort of transgender support for over 18s, and OK, some people may say "I dont want my tax being spent on that trans nonsense!" Whilst I dont agree with that, I understand the point of view as everyone rightfully has a say on how their tax is spent - but here's the kicker - they're also going after private trans healthcare. Im luckily enough I can go private, so I pay for everything, hormones, blood tests, formal diagnosis, therapy and support, everything. I haven’t cost the NHS a penny, if I can pay for it myself, then why is someone trying to stop that?

The only answer is that the end goal is to reduce the amount of people who transition, ie, reduce the number of trans women/men. If you think Im being a bit tinfoil hat here, one of the people who is on the front page of all the newspapers popping champagne has openly said on camera that "we should actively be reducing the number of people who transition because every trans person poses a problem to a sane world". Thats why this is all so scary.

Yesterday's judgement was just the religious/conservative right working out their playbook and how to roll LGBT rights back, and if you think they're going to stop here, well......now they know how to act, and they have tasted blood, do you think they will stop? If you want an idea of where this is heading, then take a read of Project 2025 and its goals for LGBT people - if that doesnt scare people, then I dont know what will. Also take a look at their women's bodily rights, again, terrifying.

So whilst a lot of people are celebrating yesterdays judgement, all Ill say is that Trans people are the canary in the mine of what is coming down the road for wider LGBT rights and the religious/conservative right implementing their goals. Whether the people who are in the groups celebrating yesterday know they're being used as tools by the religious/conservative right, Im not sure, so I personally dont feel any malice towards them.

The only personal thing I'll say here is how sad it was yesterday watching the UK celebrate the unleashing of a wave of what will be a miserable time for trans people up and down the country. Here's a simple fact - yesterday's ruling and the associated press coverage will cause an increase in transphobia and embolden right leaning people to take a pop at the LGBT community as a whole. Sad times.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ildTimes.Man
over a year ago

Wherever I May Roam

[Removed by poster at 17/04/25 10:03:50]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ildTimes.Man
over a year ago

Wherever I May Roam

"How do you personally define biological sex? It's not always as simple to determine sex as some very binary thinking people try to make it.

XX or XY Chromosomes...pretty easy

We don't use medical anomalies to define what is the norm.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

neverland

"Hey all, Ive had an eye on this thread and thought Id give a view from someone who is trans, and dont worry, this isn't going to be me banging on about trans rights here as that always causes arguments! Also, this might be a lengthy post but Ive had a night to think about it!

I hope you're wrong but with the erosion of women's rights in America (abortions), it would not surprise me. Maybe we should all re-watch a Handmaid's Tale

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

neverland

"How do you personally define biological sex? It's not always as simple to determine sex as some very binary thinking people try to make it.

XX or XY Chromosomes...pretty easy

We don't use medical anomalies to define what is the norm. "

We don't use chromosomes to assign biological sex at birth

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ildTimes.Man
over a year ago

Wherever I May Roam

Lots of LGB groups don't even want to be associated with the T part . being Trans isn't a sexual orientation,

If a guy with a penis wants to wear a dress and pretend he's a women that's fine, he's free to continue to do it, no one's calling for him to be attacked or harassed ..but don't expect everyone else to take part in that delusion that he's a woman...pretty simple.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"How do you personally define biological sex? It's not always as simple to determine sex as some very binary thinking people try to make it.

XX or XY Chromosomes...pretty easy

We don't use medical anomalies to define what is the norm.

We don't use chromosomes to assign biological sex at birth

"
He does have a point when he says such births are an anomaly. I know it's a very emotive subject but there's truth in that statement, no matter how upsetting it is to think of it in those terms.

Life, in all it's forms, is only concerned with passing on its genetic code to the next generation, that's it, nothing more. Any species that can do that has the opportunity to thrive, any that can't won't.

That's why for the huge, overwhelming majority of humans this is the case. We have evolved a system of reproduction that allows us to be a very successful, too successful some might say, species. So any birth resulting in the inability to not pass on their genetic code is not what nature intended and thankfully, whilst being sad, is not the norm and is an anonoly. If it became the norm humanity would die out.

So he's not wrong in what he says here.

All yesterday's decision did was clarify what makes up one part of our species reproductive system, namely a woman.

It's not taken away any rights from the trans community, it still grants them protection and allows them recourse if these rights are abused and rightly so.

What it also does is provide peace of mind and protection of the rights of woman, who just want to be seen as woman and enjoy the hard fought for rights its taken so long for them to obtain.

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *resesse_MelioremCouple
over a year ago

Border of London

"...this is just the first step in rolling back of LGBT and women's rights as a whole, and how this is being driven by the religious/conservative right.

...

Yesterday's judgement was just the religious/conservative right working out their playbook and how to roll LGBT rights back..."

If this were a ruling in the US, then what you say would make a lot of sense. But our judiciary and even population is certainly not influenced meaningfully by any religious right, although there is certainly a conservative element popping its head above the parapet.

On the issue of taxes going towards trans surgery, that's a matter for democracy to settle. On the issue of the right to elective, self funded, trans surgery, that should already be enshrined in law and the overwhelming majority of people who support an individual's right to do whatever they want to their body, need to act together to ring fence this right.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *4thfloorTV/TS
over a year ago

Dublin / Sligo

"Biological men will always be a threat to Biological women. "

You're telling on yourself there mate.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Biological men will always be a threat to Biological women.

You're telling on yourself there mate."

Oh dear 🤦

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"How do you personally define biological sex? It's not always as simple to determine sex as some very binary thinking people try to make it.

XX or XY Chromosomes...pretty easy

We don't use medical anomalies to define what is the norm.

We don't use chromosomes to assign biological sex at birth

Sex is not 'assigned' at birth. In at least 99% of cases it is identified, and correctly.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *4thfloorTV/TS
over a year ago

Dublin / Sligo

🎯

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *d4ugirlsMan
over a year ago

Green Cove Springs

"Mrs x nice post but I think you've completely missed my point about legal language being ambiguous.

There are people that choose to see a conversation as being straight forward for what it is, and then there are those that choose to gaslight, twist words, try and set an impression of being morally better and more intelligent.

How do you see yourself?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *d4ugirlsMan
over a year ago

Green Cove Springs

"Legal language isn't ambiguous, normally it's very specific.

Take murder, It's the unlawful killing of a reasoning being with malice forethought. Very specific requiring a number of elements all of which must be satisfied to prove the offence.

Forgot the i

People may not necessarily understand the terms but that shouldn't be mistaken for ambiguity.

Land Law is guilty of this but it's still specific, you just need to speak the language. Take owning a freehold property, you hold '...and fees simple, absolute in possession'.

So not simple, not ambiguous by intent but normally quite specific.

Mrs x

But this is all tangental to the topic under discussion here.

In essence legal language attempts to not be ambiguous but it is.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
over a year ago

York

"There are people that choose to see a conversation as being straight forward for what it is, and then there are those that choose to gaslight, twist words, try and set an impression of being morally better and more intelligent.

How do you see yourself?"

You go first.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"Mrs x nice post but I think you've completely missed my point about legal language being ambiguous.

How do you see yourself?"
Me? Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ellhungvweMan
over a year ago

Cheltenham

"...this is just the first step in rolling back of LGBT and women's rights as a whole, and how this is being driven by the religious/conservative right.

...

Yesterday's judgement was just the religious/conservative right working out their playbook and how to roll LGBT rights back...

I think if people are arguing this is a religious issue then they have fundamentally missed the point in the UK - they are arguing against the wrong “enemy” and so their points will not land as hoped. The UK is not a primarily religious country anymore -the majority of the population will nod towards it when it gives them a bank holiday but that’s about as far as they go. Church attendance for the vast majority of the population is pretty much zero.

Religion is not the issue - the problem for the trans side is that general public opinion (the silent majority) is biased towards the biology argument and telling people that they are wrong or right wing religious nut jobs isn’t the way to change peoples minds.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"...this is just the first step in rolling back of LGBT and women's rights as a whole, and how this is being driven by the religious/conservative right.

...

Yesterday's judgement was just the religious/conservative right working out their playbook and how to roll LGBT rights back...

You need a male and a female to procreate, anything else will not result in producing little ones. That's not bias it's fact.

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *iltsTSgirlTV/TS
over a year ago

Chichester

Business as usual tbh socially for the trans fortunate enough to pass / blend into society .

Same old same old .

My day today is no different than yesterday in the real world functioning .

Unlucky for the women that will now be misgendered for not confirming or having femm-typical looks/ body etc

Couple of my female friends already get hassles enough of being accused of being men. They are dreading it’s going get worse over the year for them

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ellhungvweMan
over a year ago

Cheltenham

"...this is just the first step in rolling back of LGBT and women's rights as a whole, and how this is being driven by the religious/conservative right.

...

Yesterday's judgement was just the religious/conservative right working out their playbook and how to roll LGBT rights back...

You need a male and a female to procreate, anything else will not result in producing little ones. That's not bias it's fact.

Mrs x"

Replace the word bias with the word “favours” or “supports” if that makes what I wrote easier to read.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"Business as usual tbh socially for the trans fortunate enough to pass / blend into society .

Same old same old .

My day today is no different than yesterday in the real world functioning .

Unlucky for the women that will now be misgendered for not confirming or having femm-typical looks/ body etc

Couple of my female friends already get hassles enough of being accused of being men. They are dreading it’s going get worse over the year for them

"
Anyone who calls out anyone for things like this is a twat,

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *iltsTSgirlTV/TS
over a year ago

Chichester

"...this is just the first step in rolling back of LGBT and women's rights as a whole, and how this is being driven by the religious/conservative right.

...

Yesterday's judgement was just the religious/conservative right working out their playbook and how to roll LGBT rights back...

You need a male and a female to procreate, anything else will not result in producing little ones. That's not bias it's fact.

Mrs x"

Most trans women are able to have kids unless they get orchi / srs surgery. (Most don’t get this surgery for various reasons )

Most hormones are reversible it is appearing in studies for trans women over time on the fertility front even if reduced . Then that’s not taking into account the number that get sperm frozen before starting hrt. Many good gender doctors will advise on this .

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *iltsTSgirlTV/TS
over a year ago

Chichester

"Business as usual tbh socially for the trans fortunate enough to pass / blend into society .

Same old same old .

My day today is no different than yesterday in the real world functioning .

Unlucky for the women that will now be misgendered for not confirming or having femm-typical looks/ body etc

Couple of my female friends already get hassles enough of being accused of being men. They are dreading it’s going get worse over the year for them

Anyone who calls out anyone for things like this is a twat,

Mrs x

Yes but this where we at now in society. Who defines the normative look of fem standards lol

If you don’t slot in you get fucked Certain demographics of women are massively singled a lot as has been studied and observed

We now going into a time where people can just call anyone a trans if they don’t think they look feminine enough to them

. I mean who even is going to police it lol

That’s before people even realise it’s a civil matter not criminal matter with access to bathrooms / changing rooms .. unless they look to push it up USA style to make certain bathroom use a criminal offence in public office settings

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

neverland

"How do you personally define biological sex? It's not always as simple to determine sex as some very binary thinking people try to make it.

XX or XY Chromosomes...pretty easy

We don't use medical anomalies to define what is the norm.

We don't use chromosomes to assign biological sex at birth

He does have a point when he says such births are an anomaly. I know it's a very emotive subject but there's truth in that statement, no matter how upsetting it is to think of it in those terms.

So he's not wrong in what he says here.

All yesterday's decision did was clarify what makes up one part of our species reproductive system, namely a woman.

It's not taken away any rights from the trans community, it still grants them protection and allows them recourse if these rights are abused and rightly so.

What it also does is provide peace of mind and protection of the rights of woman, who just want to be seen as woman and enjoy the hard fought for rights its taken so long for them to obtain.

Mrs x"

He wasn't right either! Babies are defined by what the practitioner sees with regards to genitals.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"...this is just the first step in rolling back of LGBT and women's rights as a whole, and how this is being driven by the religious/conservative right.

...

Yesterday's judgement was just the religious/conservative right working out their playbook and how to roll LGBT rights back...

You need a male and a female to procreate, anything else will not result in producing little ones. That's not bias it's fact.

Mrs x

Most trans women are able to have kids unless they get orchi / srs surgery. (Most don’t get this surgery for various reasons )

"
I think all that's great but it still requires medical intervention, it's not down to biology and there's nothing wrong with that but that's just the simple facts of the matter.

The judge said yesterday its not about siding with one group or another and that all rights and protections remain the same but I understand your concerns on how you'd police this, I don't know and I can see why that's a worry.

There must be a solution that suits everyone but what that is I don't know,

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

neverland

"How do you personally define biological sex? It's not always as simple to determine sex as some very binary thinking people try to make it.

XX or XY Chromosomes...pretty easy

We don't use medical anomalies to define what is the norm.

We don't use chromosomes to assign biological sex at birth

Sex is not 'assigned' at birth. In at least 99% of cases it is identified, and correctly."

Oh ffs pot8toes potarrrrtoes

The language used is actually assigned female or male at birth to differentiate those who change their sex legally!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"How do you personally define biological sex? It's not always as simple to determine sex as some very binary thinking people try to make it.

XX or XY Chromosomes...pretty easy

We don't use medical anomalies to define what is the norm.

We don't use chromosomes to assign biological sex at birth

He does have a point when he says such births are an anomaly. I know it's a very emotive subject but there's truth in that statement, no matter how upsetting it is to think of it in those terms.

So he's not wrong in what he says here.

All yesterday's decision did was clarify what makes up one part of our species reproductive system, namely a woman.

It's not taken away any rights from the trans community, it still grants them protection and allows them recourse if these rights are abused and rightly so.

What it also does is provide peace of mind and protection of the rights of woman, who just want to be seen as woman and enjoy the hard fought for rights its taken so long for them to obtain.

Mrs x

He wasn't right either! Babies are defined by what the practitioner sees with regards to genitals."
If you require any medical intervention, at birth or at a later date, unfortunately that is anomalous because the overwhelming majority don't, it's just maths.

It doesn't take away your rights as a human being it just means something happened developmentally that doesn't occur for the vast majority.

It doesn't stop with srx, it can be physical differences or mental ones. It's horrible to talk like this and look at it but it's true, it's facts but a lot of the issues here are very emotive, feelings based and that's not wrong. It's just not what the majority go through and therefore what he said is based on this and is factual.

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ity_BoyMan
over a year ago

London

This ruling doesn't change anything with regards to trans rights and protections. All it does it dehumanise trans men and women.

It's cruel and unnecessary.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *smiaTV/TS
over a year ago

Ilkeston

"Business as usual tbh socially for the trans fortunate enough to pass / blend into society .

Same old same old .

My day today is no different than yesterday in the real world functioning .

Unlucky for the women that will now be misgendered for not confirming or having femm-typical looks/ body etc

Couple of my female friends already get hassles enough of being accused of being men. They are dreading it’s going get worse over the year for them

Anyone who calls out anyone for things like this is a twat,

Mrs x

Expect this to increase massively now as a result of this judgement. But that part is never seen the impact it has on AFAB because people think its a green light to challenge everyone who dont meet their standards of what a woman looks like

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ity_BoyMan
over a year ago

London

[Removed by poster at 17/04/25 13:40:05]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"How do you personally define biological sex? It's not always as simple to determine sex as some very binary thinking people try to make it.

XX or XY Chromosomes...pretty easy

We don't use medical anomalies to define what is the norm.

We don't use chromosomes to assign biological sex at birth

Sex is not 'assigned' at birth. In at least 99% of cases it is identified, and correctly.

Oh ffs pot8toes potarrrrtoes

The language used is actually assigned female or male at birth to differentiate those who change their sex legally!"
You are not 'assigned' you are identified, you don't get a ticket telling you you've belong to one group or another, you don't get to wear a hat 'sorting' you into this group or another. It's normally very obvious what sex you are at birth, not always but normally.

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *smiaTV/TS
over a year ago

Ilkeston

"This ruling doesn't change anything with regards to trans rights and protections. All it does it dehumanise trans men and women.

It's cruel and unnecessary."

It will open the floodgates to other of our rights being challenged look how it started in the US.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ity_BoyMan
over a year ago

London

[Removed by poster at 17/04/25 13:41:29]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"[Removed by poster at 17/04/25 13:40:05]"
So what have I said, other than facts, you can tell me if you like.

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ity_BoyMan
over a year ago

London

"I give you a glass of acid but you believe it is water. If you drink it you die. Your subjective belief has absolutely no impact on the objective reality."

Human beings aren't glasses of acid. This analogy is not as clever as you think it is

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

neverland

"Business as usual tbh socially for the trans fortunate enough to pass / blend into society .

Same old same old .

My day today is no different than yesterday in the real world functioning .

Unlucky for the women that will now be misgendered for not confirming or having femm-typical looks/ body etc

Couple of my female friends already get hassles enough of being accused of being men. They are dreading it’s going get worse over the year for them

Anyone who calls out anyone for things like this is a twat,

Mrs x

Apparently you cannot use AFAB as it contains assigned, scroll up

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I give you a glass of acid but you believe it is water. If you drink it you die. Your subjective belief has absolutely no impact on the objective reality.

Human beings aren't glasses of acid. This analogy is not as clever as you think it is

Wtf are you on about 🤣

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

neverland

"How do you personally define biological sex? It's not always as simple to determine sex as some very binary thinking people try to make it.

XX or XY Chromosomes...pretty easy

We don't use medical anomalies to define what is the norm.

We don't use chromosomes to assign biological sex at birth

Sex is not 'assigned' at birth. In at least 99% of cases it is identified, and correctly.

Oh ffs pot8toes potarrrrtoes

The language used is actually assigned female or male at birth to differentiate those who change their sex legally!You are not 'assigned' you are identified, you don't get a ticket telling you you've belong to one group or another, you don't get to wear a hat 'sorting' you into this group or another. It's normally very obvious what sex you are at birth, not always but normally.

Mrs x"

You do know it's petty arguing about synonyms (that are correct).

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *smiaTV/TS
over a year ago

Ilkeston

"Business as usual tbh socially for the trans fortunate enough to pass / blend into society .

Same old same old .

My day today is no different than yesterday in the real world functioning .

Unlucky for the women that will now be misgendered for not confirming or having femm-typical looks/ body etc

Couple of my female friends already get hassles enough of being accused of being men. They are dreading it’s going get worse over the year for them

Anyone who calls out anyone for things like this is a twat,

Mrs x

Apparently you cannot use AFAB as it contains assigned, scroll up

I saw that

I will correct to Cis as that’s equally as loved

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"How do you personally define biological sex? It's not always as simple to determine sex as some very binary thinking people try to make it.

XX or XY Chromosomes...pretty easy

We don't use medical anomalies to define what is the norm.

We don't use chromosomes to assign biological sex at birth

Sex is not 'assigned' at birth. In at least 99% of cases it is identified, and correctly.

Oh ffs pot8toes potarrrrtoes

Mrs x

You do know it's petty arguing about synonyms (that are correct). "

Assigned is not a synonym of identified.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

neverland

"How do you personally define biological sex? It's not always as simple to determine sex as some very binary thinking people try to make it.

XX or XY Chromosomes...pretty easy

We don't use medical anomalies to define what is the norm.

We don't use chromosomes to assign biological sex at birth

He does have a point when he says such births are an anomaly. I know it's a very emotive subject but there's truth in that statement, no matter how upsetting it is to think of it in those terms.

So he's not wrong in what he says here.

All yesterday's decision did was clarify what makes up one part of our species reproductive system, namely a woman.

It's not taken away any rights from the trans community, it still grants them protection and allows them recourse if these rights are abused and rightly so.

What it also does is provide peace of mind and protection of the rights of woman, who just want to be seen as woman and enjoy the hard fought for rights its taken so long for them to obtain.

Mrs x

He wasn't right either! Babies are defined by what the practitioner sees with regards to genitals.If you require any medical intervention, at birth or at a later date, unfortunately that is anomalous because the overwhelming majority don't, it's just maths.

It doesn't take away your rights as a human being it just means something happened developmentally that doesn't occur for the vast majority.

Mrs x"

I have no idea what you're arguing about. Chromosomes are irrelevant in biological assignation at birth.

I have actually argued for this in this day and age.

I am purely sticking to the context of baby biological sex. To which he is currently wrong.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

neverland

"How do you personally define biological sex? It's not always as simple to determine sex as some very binary thinking people try to make it.

XX or XY Chromosomes...pretty easy

We don't use medical anomalies to define what is the norm.

We don't use chromosomes to assign biological sex at birth

Sex is not 'assigned' at birth. In at least 99% of cases it is identified, and correctly.

Oh ffs pot8toes potarrrrtoes

Mrs x

You do know it's petty arguing about synonyms (that are correct).

Assigned is not a synonym of identified. "

I'm not wrong in choice of words. Deal with it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"I give you a glass of acid but you believe it is water. If you drink it you die. Your subjective belief has absolutely no impact on the objective reality.

Human beings aren't glasses of acid. This analogy is not as clever as you think it is

"
He's not saying that though is he, he's just pointing out that feeling something, no matter how genuinely, doesn't alter facts. You may feel like you are x,y, or z but if you aren't no amount of feelings will change that fact.

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *melie LALWoman
over a year ago

neverland

"Business as usual tbh socially for the trans fortunate enough to pass / blend into society .

Same old same old .

My day today is no different than yesterday in the real world functioning .

Unlucky for the women that will now be misgendered for not confirming or having femm-typical looks/ body etc

Couple of my female friends already get hassles enough of being accused of being men. They are dreading it’s going get worse over the year for them

Anyone who calls out anyone for things like this is a twat,

Mrs x

Apparently you cannot use AFAB as it contains assigned, scroll up

I saw that

I will correct to Cis as that’s equally as loved

You'll start forum wars with that one.

Anyway, this thread will be over by the time I've done my shopping.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"How do you personally define biological sex? It's not always as simple to determine sex as some very binary thinking people try to make it.

XX or XY Chromosomes...pretty easy

We don't use medical anomalies to define what is the norm.

We don't use chromosomes to assign biological sex at birth

Sex is not 'assigned' at birth. In at least 99% of cases it is identified, and correctly.

Oh ffs pot8toes potarrrrtoes

Mrs x

You do know it's petty arguing about synonyms (that are correct).

Assigned is not a synonym of identified.

I'm not wrong in choice of words. Deal with it."
I don't have to deal with anything, your words are yours to deal with as you please,

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *smiaTV/TS
over a year ago

Ilkeston

"Business as usual tbh socially for the trans fortunate enough to pass / blend into society .

Same old same old .

My day today is no different than yesterday in the real world functioning .

Unlucky for the women that will now be misgendered for not confirming or having femm-typical looks/ body etc

Couple of my female friends already get hassles enough of being accused of being men. They are dreading it’s going get worse over the year for them

Anyone who calls out anyone for things like this is a twat,

Mrs x

Apparently you cannot use AFAB as it contains assigned, scroll up

I saw that

I will correct to Cis as that’s equally as loved

You'll start forum wars with that one.

Anyway, this thread will be over by the time I've done my shopping."

Oh no imagine their feelings being hurt. If only some people showed the same attitude to the people they are debating

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"How do you personally define biological sex? It's not always as simple to determine sex as some very binary thinking people try to make it.

XX or XY Chromosomes...pretty easy

We don't use medical anomalies to define what is the norm.

We don't use chromosomes to assign biological sex at birth

He does have a point when he says such births are an anomaly. I know it's a very emotive subject but there's truth in that statement, no matter how upsetting it is to think of it in those terms.

So he's not wrong in what he says here.

All yesterday's decision did was clarify what makes up one part of our species reproductive system, namely a woman.

It's not taken away any rights from the trans community, it still grants them protection and allows them recourse if these rights are abused and rightly so.

What it also does is provide peace of mind and protection of the rights of woman, who just want to be seen as woman and enjoy the hard fought for rights its taken so long for them to obtain.

Mrs x

It doesn't take away your rights as a human being it just means something happened developmentally that doesn't occur for the vast majority.

Mrs x

I have no idea what you're arguing about. Chromosomes are irrelevant in biological assignation at birth.

I have actually argued for this in this day and age.

I am purely sticking to the context of baby biological sex. To which he is currently wrong. "
Haha, I have no idea what you are on about. You've obviously not been reading what I post closely enough because if you had you'd have noticed a total lack of any mention to Chromosomes in them. You are attributing words I did not use to suit your narrative.

I'm glad your sticking to a baby's biological sex because I remember vividly giving birth to my four children. I don't remember any battery of tests performed upon them to determine their sex. I do remember being told I had a boy or girl almost immediately by the midwife and lo and behold she was spot on. Now this was the 90s and things change but it was still the same basic procedure when I was there for 3 of my 7 grandkids being born, one only 9 months ago.

So glad to see we are on the same page there,

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I give you a glass of acid but you believe it is water. If you drink it you die. Your subjective belief has absolutely no impact on the objective reality.

Human beings aren't glasses of acid. This analogy is not as clever as you think it is

He's not saying that though is he, he's just pointing out that feeling something, no matter how genuinely, doesn't alter facts. You may feel like you are x,y, or z but if you aren't no amount of feelings will change that fact.

Mrs x

Thanks Mrs N x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ity_BoyMan
over a year ago

London

"I give you a glass of acid but you believe it is water. If you drink it you die. Your subjective belief has absolutely no impact on the objective reality.

Human beings aren't glasses of acid. This analogy is not as clever as you think it is

Mrs x

Gender is a social construct, not a physical substance. Gender is also complex, and can't be reduced to a physical trait.

Comparing trans people to inanimate objects is dehumanising them, and strips them of agency and identity. This dimisses the reality that trans people are real and live real lives.

Analogies are supposed to clarify complex ideas. This one does the opposite, it oversimplifies, misleads, and reveals a fundamental ignorance about what gender is and how it functions in society.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *resesse_MelioremCouple
over a year ago

Border of London

I will correct to Cis as that’s equally as loved

If you're happy to troll people by calling them things that trigger them, don't be upset when people call you (or those your care about) things that trigger you (or them)...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *smiaTV/TS
over a year ago

Ilkeston

I will correct to Cis as that’s equally as loved

If you're happy to troll people by calling them things that trigger them, don't be upset when people call you (or those your care about) things that trigger you (or them)..."

Well what should we say as we cant say assigned and cis?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I give you a glass of acid but you believe it is water. If you drink it you die. Your subjective belief has absolutely no impact on the objective reality.

Human beings aren't glasses of acid. This analogy is not as clever as you think it is

Mrs x

Gender is a social construct, not a physical substance. Gender is also complex, and can't be reduced to a physical trait.

Comparing trans people to inanimate objects is dehumanising them, and strips them of agency and identity. This dimisses the reality that trans people are real and live real lives.

Analogies are supposed to clarify complex ideas. This one does the opposite, it oversimplifies, misleads, and reveals a fundamental ignorance about what gender is and how it functions in society.

Firstly it wasn't an analogy, it was an illustration.

Secondly it had nothing to do with gender identity. It was an illustration of the difference between subjective and objective truth, an essential component of scientific method, rational thought, and the way we all conduct our lives.

If you believe that reality is whatever you say it is (subjective) rather than what the overwhelming evidence points to (objective) then you have left sanity behind and can't really be taken seriously.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"I give you a glass of acid but you believe it is water. If you drink it you die. Your subjective belief has absolutely no impact on the objective reality.

Human beings aren't glasses of acid. This analogy is not as clever as you think it is

Mrs x

Gender is a social construct, not a physical substance. Gender is also complex, and can't be reduced to a physical trait.

Comparing trans people to inanimate objects is dehumanising them, and strips them of agency and identity. This dimisses the reality that trans people are real and live real lives.

Analogies are supposed to clarify complex ideas. This one does the opposite, it oversimplifies, misleads, and reveals a fundamental ignorance about what gender is and how it functions in society.

Gender identity is not superficial or made up. It's a deeply held aspect of someone's self image. A trans person identifying as a man or woman is no less significant than me identifying as a man or you identifying as a woman."
Another person using words in have not used just to further your narrative. I've not discussed gender here but don't let that get in the way of your'story'.

Nobody compared anyone to inanimate objects, nobody.

The analogy used was to demonstrate the difference between feelings and facts.

Broken down simply, no matter how much you feel something is something else, in this case acid into water, it does not change the reality of the situation.

Therefore by going with your feelings rather than with the facts you are in for a painful lesson, acid kills, water doesnt.

So nobody is dehumanising anyone, they are simply saying that facts trump feelings, in most cases.

Your reading of this is done in such a way as to support your argument rather than looking what was actually said, which is a good example of your feelings getting in the way of the facts,

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otMe66 OP Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

"This ruling doesn't change anything with regards to trans rights and protections. All it does it dehumanise trans men and women.

It's cruel and unnecessary."

Not according to a women’s rights group, and the supreme court’s ruling.

What is it that you don’t agree with?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

I will correct to Cis as that’s equally as loved

If you're happy to troll people by calling them things that trigger them, don't be upset when people call you (or those your care about) things that trigger you (or them)...

Well what should we say as we cant say assigned and cis? "
You can say what you want, you can call yourself what you want, identify however you please, nobody has said you can't,

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otMe66 OP Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

"I give you a glass of acid but you believe it is water. If you drink it you die. Your subjective belief has absolutely no impact on the objective reality.

Human beings aren't glasses of acid. This analogy is not as clever as you think it is

Mrs x

Gender is a social construct, not a physical substance. Gender is also complex, and can't be reduced to a physical trait.

Comparing trans people to inanimate objects is dehumanising them, and strips them of agency and identity. This dimisses the reality that trans people are real and live real lives.

Analogies are supposed to clarify complex ideas. This one does the opposite, it oversimplifies, misleads, and reveals a fundamental ignorance about what gender is and how it functions in society.

I did cover social constructs and why it is important to have the utmost clarity to prevent misunderstandings. It is further up and evolves weights and measures as the example.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

NHS will be pursued if gender policies don't change, equalities watchdog says.

That is the headline on BBC website at the moment, looks like it has started.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Good gender identity everyone

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

... Gender identity is not superficial or made up. It's a deeply held aspect of someone's self image. A trans person identifying as a man or woman is no less significant than me identifying as a man or you identifying as a woman."
There's one difference though, isn't there, in that what i identify as is based on biology, whereas a trans person's identity is based upon feelings.

Whilst each is significant to that person it's not the same. A person can change their feelings, decide they no longer identify as that which they used to but you cannot change your biology. That's a big difference between feelings and facts.

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately