UK Supreme Court Decision on Gender

[luckynumbah7]

Why do you agree with this anyway? What is your justification?

Well so far we've got the scintillating reasonings of 'theres too few of you compared to me to care' and 'i just don't want to fuck 'em'. The depth of the thinking is, well ....shallow waters abound.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Well so far we've got the scintillating reasonings of 'theres too few of you compared to me to care' and 'i just don't want to fuck 'em'. The depth of the thinking is, well ....shallow waters abound.

....but whose to say, maybe we'll get something coherent! I don't think so, for the record (such as it is) - the whole buttressing of the verdict via both straight and gay sexuality has a severely similar vibe to 'no blacks, no fats no fems' (to put it in a way the board might grasp), but eh.

They certainly keep missing the fact that the verdict depends largely and heavily on often unintentionally radfemy straight women's assumptions about others' sexuality and that is not something that should be propped up as a healthy behavior.

 

[TX-Beau]

....but whose to say, maybe we'll get something coherent! I don't think so, for the record (such as it is) - the whole buttressing of the verdict via both straight and gay sexuality has a severely similar vibe to 'no blacks, no fats no fems' (to put it in a way the board might grasp), but eh.

They certainly keep missing the fact that the verdict depends largely and heavily on often unintentionally radfemy straight women's assumptions about others' sexuality and that is not something that should be propped up as a healthy behavior.

Oh, the laws allowing people to be "checked" for gender before using facilities/locker rooms are on the way as soon as there is no challenge left. There are places in the U.S. where the haters are trying to make it legal for adult officials to examine the genitals of children before they get to play school sports. That's next. Then they come for the Drag Queens.

 

[TX-Beau]

I alsos wonder if these same people are going to make it a huge push to ban gender neutral bathrooms, if you don't like a trans woman in your bathroom, what about a 300 pound redneck with Klan tattoo and poor hygiene? Where is the lawsuit over that?

Nowhere. Another clue what this is really about.

 

[luckynumbah7]

I alsos wonder if these same people are going to make it a huge push to ban gender neutral bathrooms, if you don't like a trans woman in your bathroom, what about a 300 pound redneck with Klan tattoo and poor hygiene? Where is the lawsuit over that?

Nowhere. Another clue what this is really about.

I think instead of banning them they'll just not convert any. Most neutral bathrooms are disability accessible toilets.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Oh, the laws allowing people to be "checked" for gender before using facilities/locker rooms are on the way as soon as there is no challenge left. There are places in the U.S. where the haters are trying to make it legal for adult officials to examine the genitals of children before they get to play school sports. That's next. Then they come for the Drag Queens.

Makes me glad I don't use changing rooms and that I pass - not looking forward to riding out this particular wave of 'ewwww, cooties!' that the world is going through.

 

[TX-Beau]

I don't have a problem with that anyway. But there are still plenty of those bathrooms out there, and no one I've ever heard of was so offended that they ran out and filed a lawsuit that I know of.

All of this is manufacturing division for political gain. White/Cis/Straight identity politics. Unfortunately, appealing to the worst in people pays off at the polls a lot of the time, especially when the target is so vulnerable.

Here, the law is supposed to work this way: "Your rights end at my nose." This means that if there is no harm, there is no imposition. Since our system is the child of the British one, I'd be surprised if that basic principle was effectively different. This stuff should be Unconstitutional so long as there isn't any demonstrable proof that Traswomen in bathrooms were fundamentally harming the rights of someone else.

But that's not what we get, of course. The people pushing this are claiming "harm" being feeling icky and offended. But there is no right to not feel icky and offended. You would NOT say anymore that segregated bathrooms (a direct comparison with the same "icky" justification) were Constitutional because of all those Black women who were offending by their presence.

They claim Trans women should not compete in women's sports because they will have an unfair advantage. It's funny when women push that because the underlying justification is that it's unjust because women are just weaker and less capable than men, and that's why Trans women should be banned. "...it's not fair..."

If we were really after "fair," why are women barred from the prestige, opportunity, and most definitely the money in men's sports? Is it not fair to let everyone play, and if they can't cut it, they don't get paid? I know for a fact that the championship women's soccer team here would wipe the floor with the vast majority of men in that sport. Why should they get less of everything? THAT is what's unfair.

 

[TX-Beau]

I don't have a problem with that anyway. But there are still plenty of those bathrooms out there, and no one I've ever heard of was so offended that they ran out and filed a lawsuit that I know of.

All of this is manufacturing division for political gain. White/Cis/Straight identity politics. Unfortunately, appealing to the worst in people pays off at the polls a lot of the time, especially when the target is so vulnerable.

Here, the law is supposed to work this way: "Your rights end at my nose." This means that if there is no harm, there is no imposition. Since our system is the child of the British one, I'd be surprised if that basic principle was effectively different. This stuff should be Unconstitutional so long as there isn't any demonstrable proof that Traswomen in bathrooms were fundamentally harming the rights of someone else.

But that's not what we get, of course. The people pushing this are claiming "harm" being feeling icky and offended. But there is no right to not feel icky and offended. You would NOT say anymore that segregated bathrooms (a direct comparison with the same "icky" justification) were Constitutional because of all those Black women who were offending by their presence.

They claim Trans women should not compete in women's sports because they will have an unfair advantage. It's funny when women push that because the underlying justification is that it's unjust because women are just weaker and less capable than men, and that's why Trans women should be banned. "...it's not fair..."

If we were really after "fair," why are women barred from the prestige, opportunity, and most definitely the money in men's sports? Is it not fair to let everyone play, and if they can't cut it, they don't get paid? I know for a fact that the championship women's soccer team here would wipe the floor with the vast majority of men in that sport. Why should they get less of everything? THAT is what's unfair.

Edit, I don't have a problem with gender-neutral bathrooms. They don't have lines of guys pissing in the sink.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Edit, I don't have a problem with gender-neutral bathrooms. They don't have lines of guys pissing in the sink.

Thank God for small favors, huh. An here I thought the lack of stall doors was a bad sign.

Still cleaner than the women's room 98 percent of the time.

 

[unloadonme]

I'm sure they did. Guess what gets to fall next? Also, that doesn't alter the fact that these kinds of decisions sanction real discrimination against Trans people in their daily lives from people who are utterly uninterested in the niceties of legal nitpicking.

Why do you agree with this anyway? What is your justification?

I've been trying to keep to a discussion of the legal decision, but, yes, I'm in agreement with it. I don't believe that it's possible to change sex. I think the view that a man only has to self-identify as a woman and hey presto he become one is delusional. A trans woman in my view is a man presenting as a woman. There is gender recognition and anti-discrimination legislation in the UK and I support all of that.

I'm not too bothered about the lavatory and changing room issue. My view has tended to be that people should just go through the door they're most comfortable with. There have, however, been recent cases which make me think the women's groups have got a point, including the Sandie Peggie employment tribunal (discussed elsewhere on JUB) and the trans woman rapist sent to a women's prison (link below). The court has agreed with them and I'm fine with that.

Prison bosses defend sending rapist Isla Bryson to women's jail

MSP are told the prison service, not politicians, decided where to send convicted rapist Isla Bryson.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[unloadonme]

I dunno that too many of the butch lesbians would be happy - they're usually on the chopping block in the bathroom wars due to masculinity.

In other news I have given up explaining the clarification I posted wasn't discussing trans women, he doesn't seem to get the distinction. It was referring to anyone masculine with a factory equipped vag instead one o'those customizable after-market models. Part of that whole willful erasure I suspect.

The thread is about the Supreme Court decision relating to trans women and women only spaces. If you want to discuss masculine biological women or butch lesbians, there must be a more appropriate thread somewhere. It's irrelevant here.

 

[unloadonme]

Well so far we've got the scintillating reasonings of 'theres too few of you compared to me to care' and 'i just don't want to fuck 'em'. The depth of the thinking is, well ....shallow waters abound.

Nobody has said anything even remotely approaching this.

 

[unloadonme]

I alsos wonder if these same people are going to make it a huge push to ban gender neutral bathrooms, if you don't like a trans woman in your bathroom, what about a 300 pound redneck with Klan tattoo and poor hygiene? Where is the lawsuit over that?

Nowhere. Another clue what this is really about.

On the contrary, the discussion I've seen in the UK press is that the judgement is likely to result in an increase in gender neutral facilities. Like you, I have no problem with that.

 

[rareboy]

Meanwhile a slim fragment of sanity prevails in the hysterical transphobic world...for the moment.

 

[rareboy]

They'll be coming for you, poofters.

 

[luckynumbah7]

The thread is about the Supreme Court decision relating to trans women and women only spaces. If you want to discuss masculine biological women or butch lesbians, there must be a more appropriate thread somewhere. It's irrelevant here.

You are willfully fucking ignorant if you think trans men and cis masculine woman weren't deliberately included in the ruling I've complained about.

It may have said trans women should be treated as men but it also said trans men should be ejected from both groups. Again, for the people in the back, it was decided female based needed services are deniable no matter what your junk looks like (or, apparently, if you actually need them).

It showcases for everyone that the people lauding the decision never gave a shit about who actually needs what service and it sure as hell isnt a win for butch women - but since when have straight women (and you, what illustrious company you hold!) ever cared about that.

 

[TX-Beau]

I've been trying to keep to a discussion of the legal decision, but, yes, I'm in agreement with it. I don't believe that it's possible to change sex. I think the view that a man only has to self-identify as a woman and hey presto he become one is delusional. A trans woman in my view is a man presenting as a woman. There is gender recognition and anti-discrimination legislation in the UK and I support all of that.

I'm not too bothered about the lavatory and changing room issue. My view has tended to be that people should just go through the door they're most comfortable with. There have, however, been recent cases which make me think the women's groups have got a point, including the Sandie Peggie employment tribunal (discussed elsewhere on JUB) and the trans woman rapist sent to a women's prison (link below). The court has agreed with them and I'm fine with that.

Prison bosses defend sending rapist Isla Bryson to women's jail

MSP are told the prison service, not politicians, decided where to send convicted rapist Isla Bryson.

www.bbc.co.uk

The logic of this is hugely contrary. You have no problem with people using whatever restroom. Still, you agree that trans people should be discriminated against because you decided they don't exist and then justify legal discrimination with some example of a rapist in prison with the clear implication that a single rapist impeached every trans person, impying again that rape is inherent to trans identity, which you already said doesn't exist. So if it doesn't exist like you believe, how does that rapist have anything whatsoever to do with anything at all? It looks like that's just there to give cover to the fundamental premise that you have decided who trans people "really" are, and it's fine to discriminate against them based on your disapproval.

That is the definition of bigotry.

So, suppose you are at all consistent in your legal philosophy. In that case, that means that people who don't like you are justified in passing laws discriminating against you, and you find that perfectly acceptable because some gay man somewhere, sometime did something reprehensible. Therefore, you are impeached by that crime and should be punished for it?

This makes no sense, and the only way out is just that you don't like the idea of Trans people and have no problem with their being discriminated against solely for that reason.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Whenever I hear 'protect women and girls!' I know it's bullshit. Y'all fell for an indescribably infantilizing 'wont someone think of the children'. In a way it's indescribably embarrassing considering how often homophobes use it.

 

[TX-Beau]

Whenever I hear 'protect women and girls!' I know it's bullshit. Y'all fell for an indescribably infantilizing 'wont someone think of the children'. In a way it's indescribably embarrassing considering how often homophobes use it.

It's also the oldest and most durable slur on gay men. Gay men are perverts who rape children and so must be discriminated against. It's disturbing to see queer people internalizing that nastiness and throwing it at each other.

 

[luckynumbah7]

It's disturbing to see queer people internalizing that nastiness and throwing it at each other.

At this point I'm used to it. I'm kind've surprised no one's tried the 'contagion' route yet but there's still time, I suppose.