The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

UK Supreme Court Decision on Gender

opinterph said:
As my post indicated, my confusion relates to your statement about judges. It is not clear whether "not experts" applies to all judges or only the ones who are also "generally older," and whether either of those conditions correlates with judges who are "less inclusive." In the alternative you may be suggesting that all judges are generally older, non-experts, and less inclusive than one or more other groups, such as expert, non-judges.

While it is true that the median age of judges serving in the US federal judiciary is approaching age 70 and that a significant percentage of them are over age 85, it seems that a more pertinent concern relating to inclusivity among judges may relate to a lack of diversity or inclusiveness within the federal judiciary, where 70 percent are men and about 80 percent are white.

With regard to older people being less inclusive, my anecdotal experience can certainly influence my opinion, but I understand that opinions can be skewed. I suspect that political affiliation would be a better predictor of a person's level of support for inclusiveness than age. I would be happy to entertain some real fact-based information on the matter.
Click to expand...


I suppose that there might be a lawyer out there with a specialty in psychology, medicine, and gender dysphoria, but I'm pretty sure that's going to be a rare beast.

I disagree that politics is a better weathervane than age. Political terminology is too subjective to use as a general universal category beyond its specific context anyway. A British conservative is different from an American one. Left and right apply definitions of that term to each other that the other side does not usually recognize. In the U.S., conservatives are proponents of violence and hate, encouraged by their leader, which includes LGBTQ discrimination justified by religion. Is that true of a British conservative?

The elderly grew up in a society where LGBTQ discrimination was not only accepted, it was reflexive. Some of them got over it, but a lot of them didn't. All our progress in the last forty years was made easier by generational cultural shifts. Not political reform. It can fairly be said that the political institutions followed that, and didn't create it.
 
I've already said that I wasn't really bothered whether trans women used women's facilities or not. Women's groups were bothered, argued their case in the highest court in the land, and won. That's good enough for me. I'm still not really bothered, but the court has made the meaning of the legislation clear. If you want to know my standard, just go and read the actual judgement.

There are clearly conflicting rights. The right of women to use women only spaces has trumped the right of trans women (who the court has said are biological men) to use them too. At my office we have separate gender neutral and disabled toilets as well as male and female. The answer is going to be more of that so that everyone is accommodated.
 
TX-Beau said:
In the U.S., conservatives are proponents of violence and hate, encouraged by their leader, which includes LGBTQ discrimination justified by religion. Is that true of a British conservative?
Click to expand...

No it's not. It was the Conservative-led coalition government which enacted the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 (the interaction of which has caused the current "difficulty") were enacted by a left wing Labour government.
 
Interesting reading the different opinions on whether the SC was brilliant or a totally fucked up bunch of twats.

bafkreigljwhzkekzegqgxbxiksouts4yprepaxqx4rww7xf4n6hiy3mtca@jpeg


www.standard.co.uk

What does the Supreme Court 'biological sex' ruling mean in practice?

Here’s a breakdown of what we know so far about the Supreme Court’s highly debated ruling
www.standard.co.uk www.standard.co.uk


Full disclosure. In Ontariostan our building code now requires universal washrooms for every new building or renovation.

Apparently this is what GB needs.
 
rareboy said:
Full disclosure. In Ontariostan our building code now requires universal washrooms for every new building or renovation.

Apparently this is what GB needs.
Click to expand...
personally I think all washrooms should be universal - I'm almost certain if you stick straight men and straight women in the same washroom they'll both be better behaved. I've been to conferences where the bathrooms were all neutral, worked well enough.

I'm surprised your link included trans men, usually we get the actions against us ignored in favor of a laser focused gaze on trans women. There's a longstanding issue in activist circles of willfull erasure.

-edited to add, said erasure comes from feminism's laziness regarding gender studies and trans intersections; it doesn't want to comprehend a subsection of men as a gender minority.
 
rareboy said:
Interesting reading the different opinions on whether the SC was brilliant or a totally fucked up bunch of twats.

bafkreigljwhzkekzegqgxbxiksouts4yprepaxqx4rww7xf4n6hiy3mtca@jpeg


www.standard.co.uk

What does the Supreme Court 'biological sex' ruling mean in practice?

Here’s a breakdown of what we know so far about the Supreme Court’s highly debated ruling
www.standard.co.uk www.standard.co.uk


Full disclosure. In Ontariostan our building code now requires universal washrooms for every new building or renovation.

Apparently this is what GB needs.
Click to expand...
The point of separate washrooms was never so that “people with the same pronouns can pee together.” It’s old Victorian-era mentality that if a woman removes her petticoats within hearing distance of a man removing his breeches, surely debauchery will follow.

I’ve used unisex washrooms in Sweden and everyone managed to cope. That’s really the end state of all this kerfuffle: people just want to pee. Rumour has it even the bathroom at home is unisex.

That said I’m fully on board with courts saying “sometimes natal sex still matters, sometimes natal sex is still the main driver of situations worthy of legal protections” and I’m very happy about that, because it seems obvious.

And I say that equally serious about standing with trans people to hold the court to its word that this decision can’t be interpreted as a go-ahead to erase trans people and that the dignity and equality of trans people is also worthy of protection.
 
bankside said:
The point of separate washrooms was never so that “people with the same pronouns can pee together.” It’s old Victorian-era mentality that if a woman removes her petticoats within hearing distance of a man removing his breeches, surely debauchery will follow.

I’ve used unisex washrooms in Sweden and everyone managed to cope.
Click to expand...
It's tempting to make a derogatory swipe at Swedes, but I just can't. They are an attractive people, so I don't think I can trust myself near them unbuttoning their huge bulges and then practically blowing a hole in the porcelain with their powerful streams from their firehoses.

I think I need to get some iced tea and cool off a bit.
 
opinterph said:
As my post indicated, my confusion relates to your statement about judges. It is not clear whether "not experts" applies to all judges or only the ones who are also "generally older," and whether either of those conditions correlates with judges who are "less inclusive." In the alternative you may be suggesting that all judges are generally older, non-experts, and less inclusive than one or more other groups, such as expert, non-judges.

While it is true that the median age of judges serving in the US federal judiciary is approaching age 70 and that a significant percentage of them are over age 85, it seems that a more pertinent concern relating to inclusivity among judges may relate to a lack of diversity or inclusiveness within the federal judiciary, where 70 percent are men and about 80 percent are white.

With regard to older people being less inclusive, my anecdotal experience can certainly influence my opinion, but I understand that opinions can be skewed. I suspect that political affiliation would be a better predictor of a person's level of support for inclusiveness than age. I would be happy to entertain some real fact-based information on the matter.
Click to expand...
Ignoring whatever impact McConnell's bench-stacking had during Obama's terms, one would find it perfectly normal for the skew described to exist. It takes time to rise to the judiciary, and when the current tide of elders began law school, few women or minorities were in their ranks. Only in more recent decades was that changed, so presumably there are far few senior women or minority lawyers in the population.

And, as you have stated, age is not necessarily an indicator of conservatism among the highly educated, and judges are highly educated. There certainly is no paucity of progressives of liberals among the elderly in academia, and that should be true for elite legal minds as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I see where a few establishements have just declared all their washrooms to be nongendered and that people wanting privacy can use the BF washroom.
 
Very sad how things are going in the USA and Australia. Then again, those two countries always lag behind Europe on progressive issues, and guess what? There has been some very good news from Europe over the past two weeks. The UK Supreme Court has sided with For Women Scotland, who brought a case on behalf of lesbians who were forced to allow trans-identified males (aka Timothys in urban slang) into their private meetings by overzealous cops. The Court, which does not make new laws but simply clarifies what the law is and has been, has clarified that in all laws pertaining the rights of women and gays, biological sex takes priority over gender identity. This means gay men are allowed to refuse trans-identified females (or Tiffanys in gay parlance) from our sex parties and lesbians (or other women) can keep men out. Most importantly, male rapists can no longer suddenly declare they are women upon conviction and serve their time in HM women's prisons. And although triggered by a case from Scotland, the ruling applies to the whole of the UK.

Believe it or not, but courts in QLD decided otherwise a few years ago, effectively killing gay businesses in that state.

In Spain, our own Tribunal Constitucional is expected to hand down a similar ruling to the one in the UK later this year. So I'm happy to go home.
 
Zeno Lorea said:
The UK Supreme Court has sided with For Women Scotland, who brought a case on behalf of lesbians who were forced to allow trans-identified males (aka Timothys in urban slang) into their private meetings by overzealous cops.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that For Women Scotland brought the case specifically on behalf of lesbians. I thought they were representing women more generally, therefore mainly heterosexual women. I also wasn't aware that "overzealous cops" were part of the problem. I'm pretty sure the police would prefer to stay well away from all aspects of trans rights issues.
 
TX-Beau said:
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.
Click to expand...

You have clearly never been involved in any professional sports, because "checking people's gender" doesn't involve "looking at their genitals" but a DNA test AKA cheek swab. Once in a lifetime. Hope this helps.
 
luckynumbah7 said:
Whenever I hear 'protect women and girls!' I know it's bullshit.
Click to expand...

For the first 25 years of my life I thought so too. Because we are men. Gay men, even. Our lives can be totall free of lady-stuff if we want it. We have no idea how much stronger than women we are, and how threatening the presence of a man - even just one man, even a small and effete man - in a single-sex safe space for women can be. As many women can testify, it's not even the strong men who are the most dangerous. It's the weak men.
 
Zeno Lorea said:
You have clearly never been involved in any professional sports, because "checking people's gender" doesn't involve "looking at their genitals" but a DNA test AKA cheek swab. Once in a lifetime. Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

You clearly haven't been paying attention to how this is happening in the Southern U.S. who gives a shit about professional sports. They're private orgs and can do as they please. The laws apply to schoolchildren and college students.

Hope this helps.
 
unloadonme said:
Are you talking about a different case? The decision I started the thread to discuss was not about trans men and cis masculine women.
Click to expand...

He's claiming that butch lesbian women will be kicked out of women's spaces because the other women will see them as men.

Which is not true. That never happened before and won't happen now. Thanks to Mother Evolution, women can clock the sexes even better and faster than men. I've seen thousands of masculine butch lesbians and not one of them appears male to me for longer than a split second. The same goes for trans men, sorry. They may look masculine in pics and vids with lighting and editing but IRL, from tip to toe, they are always clockable. They are the size of a woman, the shape of a woman, have the hands of a woman and the hips don't lie either. Their knees have the angle of women's knees, not men's. The link between their hand and wrist is a woman's not a man's. The birdge of their nose, the depth of the eye socket, you name it: female.

Even his statement that women would "kick each other out of" spaces is male-brain thinking. Conflict resolution between women doesn't work like that.
Gay men can be misogynists too, and many on this forum are.
 
Seriously. It's just stupid to think that public schools all over the South are going to "check gender" using DNA tests.Half the parents involved don't trust scientists with needles. They would vociferously object, the other half would find it a violation of big gubmint and vociferously object, no one would want to pay for it, and no money exists for such an asinine policy.

It sounds like a flippant dismissal of the issue by someone who doesn't want to discuss the core issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top