CPS change the proposed 'sex by deception re gender' legal guidance

So the answer I think you're giving can be summarised as 'I won't answer because this scenario can't currently happen due to social/technological constraints. If I were to answer, the answer would be complicated.'

Please correct me if I'm wrong - it was a little hard to extract your meaning between the insinuations that I'm an AI-worshipping techbro living in a fantasy land, and the reiteration of ideological mantras that patently do not reflect the reality of people's actual lives.

"I'm sorry you find it difficult to say the obvious and clear answer."

There is no 'obvious and clear answer', except to maybe your '10 year old self'.

"You are likely, as technology improves, to find the next few decades quite distressing if you are having difficulty with an incredibly simple thought experiment like this one."

I don't believe I will find the next few decades distressing, however, it seems that you will continue to find the next few decades distressing because you seem to honestly believe that some body parts are plug and play and that AI will miraculously enable this.

I mean, I have been watching nearly every sci fi fantasy series and movie out there and read many of the books. And I can safely say that I will not find the next few decades distressing in the way you state. I mean, I have been waiting for a hoverboard for decades!

"Your hostility to a simple and earnest request to work through this example explains why you find the idea of early intervention blockade so deeply sacrilegious - it tests the definitions of 'male' and 'female' and forces us to consider people as more than a singular, all-encompassing and static point of origin."

And again with the hyperbole and the catastrophising.

No. I am not hostile. I HAVE worked through your 'simple and earnest request' and have been blunt in telling you that it is just as flawed and false as your 'Dudley - Berwick' analogy and you “ a constellation of statistically linked attributes - including genotype - that together match a pattern we identify as sex.” definition. Both of which you thought were useful and accurate.

"it tests the definitions of 'male' and 'female' and forces us to consider people as more than a singular, all-encompassing and static point of origin."

Just because you want it to be so, doesn't make it so.

Your suggestions don't force anything because they are not relevant and there are quite a few excellent posts on this thread as to why that is. But I will continue to say to you that 'your' definition of a female person requires to you use falsity to support your definition. Your definitions are not coherent and they fail at the first analysis.

Just because you want those definitions to be true, doesn't mean they are or will ever be.

"I think I understand you a little better now. Various comments over the years have hinted at this, but I think this confirms it. You seem to be assuming that I'm reading off a script; that I'm just repeating a 'brief' that I got elsewhere, told to me by clinicians who have drunk the Gender Ideology activism kool-aid."

And if you have finally understood this, can you then work out the next step? I wonder.

"We need to consider these kinds of thought experiments, even if you find them tedious and don't like the conclusions they inspire, because like it or not, we are going to have to break out of this 'on rails' mindset of sex as a singular, all-consuming definition tethered solely to a single chromosomal point of origin. Development does not work that way."

No. We don't need to consider these kind of thought experiments. Because they are irrelevant to the material reality - people cannot change sex, sex without a person disclosing their sex is engaging in non-consensual sex, and female people need single sex spaces away from all males above the age of 8 regardless of that male person's extreme body modifications.

"I understand that it's hard and you don't like some of the answers. I get it. I don't like some of the answers either. We have to engage with them, though, as a society."

Yeah? Nah! No thanks. You don't 'get it' and it is not because 'I don't like some of the answers either'. "We have to engage with them, though, as a society." Not in the way you demand though.

TL/DR

That whole quote above was a wheedling 'cope' statement. I think the cope part is just projection by now.

"Is it also not counterproductive to the safety of trans people for them to conceal this information and risk the potential violence of someone who feels as though they’ve been tricked?"

The callous answer was along the lines of 'if someone finds out the truth, then they can simply not have sex with that person again'. I can go and find the exact quote if you like.

"Why would a trans person want to have sex with someone who wasn’t accepting of their identity?"

Why indeed! Could it be because if they didn't do this, then who would that person have sex with? The pool of potential sex partners looks incredibly small and I am sure you can guess which group would be in the majority of that pool.

Is it also not counterproductive to the safety of trans people for them to conceal this information and risk the potential violence of someone who feels as though they’ve been tricked?

Why would a trans person want to have sex with someone who wasn’t accepting of their identity?

If I could have sex with someone without them knowing I was black I definitely wouldn’t want to. Why would I?

Thank you for taking that on so the rest of us didn't have to.

Nobody else 'devised' this. I'm not working from some kind of external playbook of canned talking points. I've been considering these kinds of scenarios since I was about 10 years old because I've had to find ways to understand what I was experiencing and articulate what I needed.

I'm sorry you find it difficult to say the obvious and clear answer. You are likely, as technology improves, to find the next few decades quite distressing if you are having difficulty with an incredibly simple thought experiment like this one.

Your hostility to a simple and earnest request to work through this example explains why you find the idea of early intervention blockade so deeply sacrilegious - it tests the definitions of 'male' and 'female' and forces us to consider people as more than a singular, all-encompassing and static point of origin.

I think I understand you a little better now. Various comments over the years have hinted at this, but I think this confirms it. You seem to be assuming that I'm reading off a script; that I'm just repeating a 'brief' that I got elsewhere, told to me by clinicians who have drunk the Gender Ideology activism kool-aid.

This could not be further from the truth.

We need to consider these kinds of thought experiments, even if you find them tedious and don't like the conclusions they inspire, because like it or not, we are going to have to break out of this 'on rails' mindset of sex as a singular, all-consuming definition tethered solely to a single chromosomal point of origin. Development does not work that way.

Clinical trials of GnRH agonist treatment may well be allowed to actually happen. More people with difficult biology like me are going to exist, and some of them are never going to have been exposed to even a drop of endogenous sex hormones to inform their development.

People in this situation already exist today. Some of them, we don't define as 'transgender' at all.

We must learn to deal with this facet of reality in a compassionate fashion. We cannot refuse to answer the question.

These people exist. More will exist in future. Those definitions are not going to become more concise over time and even if you ban treatments here, we will still have to deal with visitors from overseas who interact with our justice system.

I understand that it's hard and you don't like some of the answers. I get it. I don't like some of the answers either. We have to engage with them, though, as a society.

"I'm sorry you find it difficult to say the obvious and clear answer."

There is no 'obvious and clear answer', except to maybe your '10 year old self'.

"You are likely, as technology improves, to find the next few decades quite distressing if you are having difficulty with an incredibly simple thought experiment like this one."

I don't believe I will find the next few decades distressing, however, it seems that you will continue to find the next few decades distressing because you seem to honestly believe that some body parts are plug and play and that AI will miraculously enable this.

I mean, I have been watching nearly every sci fi fantasy series and movie out there and read many of the books. And I can safely say that I will not find the next few decades distressing in the way you state. I mean, I have been waiting for a hoverboard for decades!

"Your hostility to a simple and earnest request to work through this example explains why you find the idea of early intervention blockade so deeply sacrilegious - it tests the definitions of 'male' and 'female' and forces us to consider people as more than a singular, all-encompassing and static point of origin."

And again with the hyperbole and the catastrophising.

No. I am not hostile. I HAVE worked through your 'simple and earnest request' and have been blunt in telling you that it is just as flawed and false as your 'Dudley - Berwick' analogy and you “ a constellation of statistically linked attributes - including genotype - that together match a pattern we identify as sex.” definition. Both of which you thought were useful and accurate.

"it tests the definitions of 'male' and 'female' and forces us to consider people as more than a singular, all-encompassing and static point of origin."

Just because you want it to be so, doesn't make it so.

Your suggestions don't force anything because they are not relevant and there are quite a few excellent posts on this thread as to why that is. But I will continue to say to you that 'your' definition of a female person requires to you use falsity to support your definition. Your definitions are not coherent and they fail at the first analysis.

Just because you want those definitions to be true, doesn't mean they are or will ever be.

"I think I understand you a little better now. Various comments over the years have hinted at this, but I think this confirms it. You seem to be assuming that I'm reading off a script; that I'm just repeating a 'brief' that I got elsewhere, told to me by clinicians who have drunk the Gender Ideology activism kool-aid."

And if you have finally understood this, can you then work out the next step? I wonder.

"We need to consider these kinds of thought experiments, even if you find them tedious and don't like the conclusions they inspire, because like it or not, we are going to have to break out of this 'on rails' mindset of sex as a singular, all-consuming definition tethered solely to a single chromosomal point of origin. Development does not work that way."

No. We don't need to consider these kind of thought experiments. Because they are irrelevant to the material reality - people cannot change sex, sex without a person disclosing their sex is engaging in non-consensual sex, and female people need single sex spaces away from all males above the age of 8 regardless of that male person's extreme body modifications.

"I understand that it's hard and you don't like some of the answers. I get it. I don't like some of the answers either. We have to engage with them, though, as a society."

Yeah? Nah! No thanks. You don't 'get it' and it is not because 'I don't like some of the answers either'. "We have to engage with them, though, as a society." Not in the way you demand though.

TL/DR

That whole quote above was a wheedling 'cope' statement. I think the cope part is just projection by now.

Forced teaming, pompous lecturing, scolding, arrogance, absurd exhortations to obey, and unpleasant insinuations. That's sure to win the hearts and minds of everyone.

Nobody else 'devised' this. I'm not working from some kind of external playbook of canned talking points. I've been considering these kinds of scenarios since I was about 10 years old because I've had to find ways to understand what I was experiencing and articulate what I needed.

I'm sorry you find it difficult to say the obvious and clear answer. You are likely, as technology improves, to find the next few decades quite distressing if you are having difficulty with an incredibly simple thought experiment like this one.

Your hostility to a simple and earnest request to work through this example explains why you find the idea of early intervention blockade so deeply sacrilegious - it tests the definitions of 'male' and 'female' and forces us to consider people as more than a singular, all-encompassing and static point of origin.

I think I understand you a little better now. Various comments over the years have hinted at this, but I think this confirms it. You seem to be assuming that I'm reading off a script; that I'm just repeating a 'brief' that I got elsewhere, told to me by clinicians who have drunk the Gender Ideology activism kool-aid.

This could not be further from the truth.

We need to consider these kinds of thought experiments, even if you find them tedious and don't like the conclusions they inspire, because like it or not, we are going to have to break out of this 'on rails' mindset of sex as a singular, all-consuming definition tethered solely to a single chromosomal point of origin. Development does not work that way.

Clinical trials of GnRH agonist treatment may well be allowed to actually happen. More people with difficult biology like me are going to exist, and some of them are never going to have been exposed to even a drop of endogenous sex hormones to inform their development.

People in this situation already exist today. Some of them, we don't define as 'transgender' at all.

We must learn to deal with this facet of reality in a compassionate fashion. We cannot refuse to answer the question.

These people exist. More will exist in future. Those definitions are not going to become more concise over time and even if you ban treatments here, we will still have to deal with visitors from overseas who interact with our justice system.

I understand that it's hard and you don't like some of the answers. I get it. I don't like some of the answers either. We have to engage with them, though, as a society.

Is it also not counterproductive to the safety of trans people for them to conceal this information and risk the potential violence of someone who feels as though they’ve been tricked?

Why would a trans person want to have sex with someone who wasn’t accepting of their identity?

If I could have sex with someone without them knowing I was black I definitely wouldn’t want to. Why would I?

Is it also not counterproductive to the safety of trans people for them to conceal this information and risk the potential violence of someone who feels as though they’ve been tricked?

Why would a trans person want to have sex with someone who wasn’t accepting of their identity?

If I could have sex with someone without them knowing I was black I definitely wouldn’t want to. Why would I?

No has a brain transplant. No one has had a brain transplant or will have a brain transplant.

It is a weak attempt to leverage in ‘wrong body’ and has nothing to do with not disclosing the sex your (general you) body is before having sex with someone.

Whoever initially devised the brain transplant exercise for this purpose obviously thinks this is a clever exercise, but it is not. This is just another failed analogy. Just like being born in Dudley and moving to Berwick. Just like being female is supposedly “ a constellation of statistically linked attributes - including genotype - that together match a pattern we identify as sex.” These don’t work because they are fatally flawed from the outset.

No one has had a brain transplant.

And what is the only true statement is that any male person can only ever be a male person. They are male in every cell of their body. If they claim to live like are a female person, they are only ever living as their personal conceptualisation of how they believe a female person should or would live.

They live their life navigating the world with a male body and dealing with that body and how society deals with that body. If they make extreme body modifications it is still a male body, just with extreme body modifications. Not a female body. They don’t navigate the world with a female body, only with a male body with extreme body modifications.

A cavity that has been created in a male pubic region is not a vagina. It doesn’t have any role except to insert objects into. It doesn’t even act ‘just like a vagina’. It never has and it never will. It is not a vagina despite some people claiming that it is.

Someone making extreme body modifications to their body does not give that person any right to not disclose their sex to a potential sex partner. A decision which will negate the consent of that partner and mean the sex is not consensual. Because every person has a valid and reasonable expectation to know the sex of the person they are about to have sex with.

No brain transplants. There are No wrong bodies. A modified body is always a modified body. A male person has always interpreted life as a person with a male body their entire life. Even after extreme body modifications.

The logic can never be anything else.