UK Supreme Court Decision on Gender

[TX-Beau]

Every single successful culture on the planet conquered some other tribes to be the dominant culture of their area and/or epoch.

ALL histtory is writtten by the winners per se.

But that doesn't change the default of sexuality as male and female. Mores, customs, taboos, and practices all exist in various forms, but championing the least frequent or least successful doesn't imbue them with some inherent virtue by fact of defeat.

And whether Greeks looked down on the ba-ba-barians, or the Romans, or the Indians, or the Persians, or the Monguls, or the Manchu, or the Vikings, or the Spanish doesn't negate that almost all recorded empires, whether Christian, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Greek, or whatever, defined men and women as opposite sexes.

Whether their cultures, or endemic peoples, identified sexual deviants outside binary sexual roles didn't include those outliers being reidentified as men or women. Tthey were still other.

The assertion that history is written by dominant forces doesn't negate that they had binary sexual identities in common for the vast majority of them.

What does that mean, "successful culture?"

Anyone who thinks that an actual thing, and not just eugenics nastiness, tell us what that means and who it applies to.

I dare you.

 

[unloadonme]

J.K. Rowling and her TERF squad are apparently delighted.

Indeed they are.

JK Rowling’s journey from Harry Potter creator to gender-critical campaigner

Doyenne of children’s literature has regularly utilised social media in support of women-only spaces

www.theguardian.com

 

[luckynumbah7]

It seems strange that the created this universe that gave a place to left out kids, only to end up being such a shit. Was it an accident?

If you've read the books you should've noticed the blatant misogyny, from Umbridges' commupance being gang rape to all of the female students being a not-very-good foil for the protagonist at-best. And don't get me started on the werewolf or the fast 'n loose claim of Dumbledore being gay outside the written contents of book.

She had a decent idea but horrible execution, can't write for shit considering the plot holes alone. Reminds me of the guy who wrote the series that birthed Dexter- entertaining series but a shitty writer with a bad plot.

 

[luckynumbah7]

..and I stand by that description of her work. Ya can't heavily invest in already created mythologies and put it within your own work, from ridiculous names on down, and then when ppl notice centaurs are made out to be raped buggers historically it's being leaned on of all things as a revenge thing. Handwaving the interlude away in the book doesn't mean no one will notice.

 

[rareboy]

I agree.

Once she showed the empty horrible person she really is...her books really start to come apart.

I said from the first 100 pages that I read wayyyyyyyyyyy back when that she was a shamelessly derivative shit writer...but then I found out that she is really just a bitter, mentally fucked up person.

In one way, I am glad that she and all her other socially misfit TERFs might find a safe space...go there...shut the fuck up and never be heard from again as they celebrate being utterly and totally defined by their vaginas

 

[rareboy]

Just saying....

 

[NotHardUp1]

The suggestion that somehow the elite or ruling class are more upset with woke dogma than other classes is ignoring the obvious: working class, less educated constituents ARE the new MAGA/GOP, and I can assure you they are not pro-gender distinguised from sex.

The vast majority of society is against the limitless bifurcation of gender to accommodate every flavor of the month. As stated before, the practical implications are full of incredibly contentious situations in which someone will claim accommodation and demand exception, leaving individual owners of businesses, or governments, or other entities faced with the uncertain liabilty of being sued for discrimination.

What the UK court did was recognize and remedy that.

As to the graffiti reference, Paul never implied that you were a vandal, only that your objection might be as strong as theirs, but he didn't accuse or imply you as being sympathetic with them. In debate, it is perfectly acceptable to cite bad actors on the opposing team, creating a bias in the audience with guilt by association. The correct response is to counter, or to reject the objectionable vandalism in this case. Resorting to slurs is not considered valid debate.

No, we're not in a formal debate, but the strict rules there serve as guides for best practice here unless the goal is merely to demonize, and that appears to have been posted openly now.

Every single time some topic of self-righteousness hits the forum, IF anyone engages, it ALWAYS leads to the same end, with a claim of moral superiority, as ferven tt as any religious zealot's.

 

[NotHardUp1]

I’ll admit I got angry at him because of his snotty comment comparing me to vandals in the uk because I disagreed with him, and then the crock of shit comment he made. I notice you didn’t take him to task over that though, just me because he happens to have the same view about it as you.

No, his comment didn't accuse you of like behavior, only made the point that people who were similarly irate and shared your contempt for the ruling acted out with vandalism. As you are an ocean away, it's a pretty big stretch to turn that into an accusation.

And the crock of shit comment was directed at the ISSUE the court took up, not you in the debate, and that is crystal clear in Paul's post. We share a general similarity of view on this topic, but I didn't call out his comment because it didn't insult anyone. He is not anti-trans in his comments, only anti-accommodation demanded by woke folk. There's a big difference in the two.

But my comments were more to the trend on this forum at large, you can’t deny the amount of anti trans rhetoric in hot topics is far greater these days. Doesn’t that reflect a general trend in society spearheaded by the likes of the ruling class?

I agree that society is pushing back harder now against the increasing demands for accommodations by a tiny fraction of the population, and in many aspects that do not represent any oppression. What someone else views your person as being doesn't equate to dictating 30 pronouns. The public at large can respect individuals without re-orienting the entire language and plumbing to suit a new caucus' whims.

So you can take your holier than thou bullshit and shove it. Because it does make me fucking holier than thou to respect other human beings for who they say they are and not act like the government fucking know best for everyone.

And you can BE holier than me all day long, but it's not germane to a debate. Self-righteousness is a self-image aspect. It cannot be proven or disproven. It can garner likes from allies, or dislikes from opponents, or receive comments from other posters, but it cannot be evidence or relevant in a debate of an issue.

I can champion sex with underage partners, and claim that I am perfectly moral in my view, but my self-assurance is a moot point. IF JUB allowed such a topic in debate, and the thread were presenting evidence for and against legalization of it, then claims of superiority would not be debate points.

We don’t live in history anymore the whole point of evolving as a society is to make things better for everyone, not just stick to what doesn’t work and then point at history as though it somehow excuses shit behaviour.

The point would be what is evoluttion socially and what is just churn and flailing, but not progress.

Gay rights have progressed.

Trans rights have progressed.

Lumping unnamed behaviors as "shit behavior" is a generalitty that doesn't provide any basis for evlauating. Is not calling a person who has identified as M-T-F a woman "shit behvior", even while upholding legal standards to formally recognize the M-T-F as having equal legal standing in our society? Because, if that is the claim, it implies that hurting feelings, or leaving the possibility that some members of society will FEEL disrespected isn't the same as harming those citizens.

I've been raised an educated to believe that the Nordic countries have some of the most progressive and liberal social views on the planet, yet when I read comment on meme sites, they are filled with men from Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Norway, making mysogynistic or racism or Islamaphobic or anti-LGBTQ comments. I don't read those and think their societies are the worst in Europe. I reead them and think there are significant conservative minorities who chafe at public policies that attempt to force them into social views they do not support, and leave no quarter to voice opposition.

Free societies should be able to voice all sides of an argument, but when the comments fall to good and evil and no in between, it is nothing more than religious dogma, with or without a religion.

 

[unloadonme]

Perhaps I should expand on my earlier "crock of shit" joke. For years journalists have enjoyed making British politicians squirm by asking them questions like "Can a woman have a penis?" or "Can a man have a cervix?". If the politician answers "yes" to a question like that, the vast majority of people (aka voters) are going to think they're crazy. If they say "no", a vocal minority will be baying for their blood. They can't really win.

The Supreme Court decision last week was comprehensive and has effectively put an end to the debate. That and the politicians don't have to take the blame because, in the UK, judges are not political appointees. All the politicians have to do now is say that they don't personally have a view and government policy is in accordance with legal precedence. I really can't see parliament reopening this and risking more dissent. Call it a crock of shit or a can of worms or whatever you like, there is simply no political appetite for further legislation.

 

[TX-Beau]

The suggestion that somehow the elite or ruling class are more upset with woke dogma than other classes is ignoring the obvious: working class, less educated constituents ARE the new MAGA/GOP, and I can assure you they are not pro-gender distinguised from sex.

The vast majority of society is against the limitless bifurcation of gender to accommodate every flavor of the month. As stated before, the practical implications are full of incredibly contentious situations in which someone will claim accommodation and demand exception, leaving individual owners of businesses, or governments, or other entities faced with the uncertain liabilty of being sued for discrimination

What the UK court did was recognize and remedy that..

...Every single time some topic of self-righteousness hits the forum, IF anyone engages, it ALWAYS leads to the same end, with a claim of moral superiority, as ferven tt as any religious zealot's.

This is bullshit of the first order. It implies that the courts get to order through force of law who you get to be, then adds a bunch of bullshit justification relying on ridiculous assumptions and claims, none of which are documented or referenced. So I guess this guy is some sociologist researcher doing his own research that he's refused to provide. Because if not, this is just "I don't like you, so I get to tell you what you are, and the courts will force me on you if you don't like it." It's misogyny in a new frock. Pretty much hater bullshit, and when some other court says something he doesn't like no doubt he will then be screaming the stars down about how the courts can't decide individual lives.

All this means is that he doesn't like choices you mde for you life, so he's going to pull a bunch of crap out his ass and try and force you to obey him. Fuck that.

It's always a problem when one is agreeing with the horde of racist, misogynist, bigots, and phobes who elected Toad.

ALWAYS a red flag. If anyone finds them selves in that place, maybe consider what your allies have to say about your fa**** ass.

It's amusing he's castigating someone else for self-righteousness. Physician, heal thyself.

 

[unloadonme]

This is bullshit of the first order. It implies that the courts get to order through force of law who you get to be, then adds a bunch of bullshit justification relying on ridiculous assumptions and claims, none of which are documented or referenced. .

The implication is more or less correct. The court was interpreting the underlying legislation rather than developing new law, but yes, the effect of the judgement is to tell a man who self-identifies as a woman that the law still regards him as a man. His life choice may be to live as a trans woman, but, in the UK at least, he's still legally a man.

 

[TX-Beau]

The implication is more or less correct. The court was interpreting the underlying legislation rather than developing new law, but yes, the effect of the judgement is to tell a man who self-identifies as a woman that the law still regards him as a man. His life choice may be to live as a trans woman, but, in the UK at least, he's still legally a man.

So when does the U.K. court start ordering that you are legally straight, and what will the sanctions be if you disagree?

 

[unloadonme]

So when does the U.K. court start ordering that you are legally straight, and what will the sanctions be if you disagree?

The case concerned gender rather than sexuality. I'm not aware of any legal basis on which the courts could determine sexual orientation. There was a requirement, as set out in the judgement, to clarify the law relating to gender.

 

[TX-Beau]

The case concerned gender rather than sexuality. I'm not aware of any legal basis on which the courts could determine sexual orientation. There was a requirement, as set out in the judgement, to clarify the law relating to gender.

It's where it starts. They sound all benign, and then abortion is outlawed, it's legal to discriminate against you, fire you, evict you. When your lawmakers start legislating personal individuality, you are on the road to Texas.

 

[TX-Beau]

If you've read the books you should've noticed the blatant misogyny, from Umbridges' commupance being gang rape to all of the female students being a not-very-good foil for the protagonist at-best. And don't get me started on the werewolf or the fast 'n loose claim of Dumbledore being gay outside the written contents of book.

She had a decent idea but horrible execution, can't write for shit considering the plot holes alone. Reminds me of the guy who wrote the series that birthed Dexter- entertaining series but a shitty writer with a bad plot.

I've seen a couple of the movies, but I never read the books. It seemed inclusive from the hype. But that's all I knew about the subject until Rowling showed her ass all over the net. At first, I kept thinking she didn't say what it sounded like, but then, yeah, she did.

 

[luckynumbah7]

What gets me is the 'clarification' in the ruling that trans guys get included in no single sexed space, which obvs involves dv crisis shelters, gyn offices and abortion services. For a group that claims to care about anatomy difficulties and requiring services they really ....don't care beyond their own mirror. They're more than happy to throw masculinity under the bus, fucking straight cis women.

 

[luckynumbah7]

What gets me is the 'clarification' in the ruling that trans guys get included in no single sexed space, which obvs involves dv crisis shelters, gyn offices and abortion services. For a group that claims to care about anatomy difficulties and requiring services they really ....don't care beyond their own mirror. They're more than happy to throw masculinity under the bus, fucking straight cis women.

And don't think I didn't notice peeps here doing the same thing, with their 'we've aways ostracized / considered 'em other, why stop now I mean they're only one percent of genpop!" Not like us gays at ten percent, we matter!".

Threads about equality here are a goddamn joke, they really are.

 

[luckynumbah7]

I've seen a couple of the movies, but I never read the books. It seemed inclusive from the hype.

Ya missed nothing, I just thought more people had read 'em. Again, you didn't really miss anything, there wasn't an original idea through the whole series. She even managed to double down on slavery being good for the masses via house elves, as Dobby was considered an aberration and Hermione roundly mocked for freedom efforts of the species, etc. which didn't make it to the films. Then there's the antisemitism via banker goblins and historical portrayals and ...yeah, her work is generally crap on a stick. Quite a bit didn't make it to the films.

 

[unloadonme]

What gets me is the 'clarification' in the ruling that trans guys get included in no single sexed space, which obvs involves dv crisis shelters, gyn offices and abortion services. For a group that claims to care about anatomy difficulties and requiring services they really ....don't care beyond their own mirror. They're more than happy to throw masculinity under the bus, fucking straight cis women.

I've read this post several times and still don't fully understand it. However, as far as access to single sex spaces is concerned, the effect of the judgement is that trans women are legally men and should not be allowed to access women only spaces. As far as gynaecologists and abortion clinics are concerned, I don't think they're classed as single sex spaces as husbands/partners often attend and staff are often male, so they would be unaffected by the judgement. Surely biological men are unlikely to have any need of these services, trans or not.

The opposite is that trans men are still legally considered to be women, so they would be allowed to access women only spaces. There's nothing to stop them visiting gynaecologists and abortion clinics as needed.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Nobody ever stops at bathrooms. We already get kicked out pretty regularly, this just gives it a veneer of acceptability.