How did we get here?

Look mate. Women are saying no to males in female spaces. It doesn’t matter how much chat gpt gubbins you produce or how much you try to scold them, they’re saying no. Women don’t need a reason to say no to males in female in spaces the law says males are excluded. No means no. Why are you so determined to make women accept males in female only spaces? Why does their saying no bother you so much. Women are allowed to say no. I assume you’ve heard that word a lot in your life so you understand what it means.

If teachers said to their students ‘um no. Comprehension fail’, I think they would be getting many complaints.

As we have had this very discussion before, it is clear you still don’t understand how the dictionary works. Or lists of this nature. The number, in this instance ‘1’ groups together elements that refer to the same aspect of the meaning.

Hence there is also a number 2 and 3.

So, for instance we have :

2 a) sexually motivated phenomena or behavior.
b) sexual intercourse.

a) introduces the definition and b) remains in reference to that specific definition. There is no introduction of a new area of discussion after a). That would make the dictionary very confusing. Therefore new areas of meaning are given new numbers and then broken down further but still with direct relationship into a), b), c) etc.

Your personal introduction of behaviour that is not specific to reproduction would not be a valid interpretation of the dictionary.

nope. Males can never be women no matter how many outdated sexist stereotypes they follow. It may make them sad but there it is.

And it doesn’t matter how many time you repeat your theory. It doesn’t work for the purpose of categorising humans for accessing single sex provisions.

It doesn't need to as you have been repeatedly told. Society works on the harm principle so it's a matter of establishing harm that legitimises inclusion or exclusion & compromise.

The rule of cause & effect is intimidation now?

Except when you do it?

Did you even read the full definition? (b) does not refer to reproduction only (a) does. And (b) gives an example that specifies that doctors can alter characteristics:

b
: the sum of the structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that distinguish males and females
Doctors can alter the physical characteristics of sex, but bodily sex does not determine gender.—Dinitia Smith

"Telling me that I have had a comprehension fail is looking like you are reverting back to abusive tactics."

Um telling someone they have misunderstood something & showing them where they misunderstood it is abuse now? Looks like a lot of teachers are in 'trouble'….

Seriously, ‘mothers dinners’????

Why would a male person wish to join a dinner that has been created so that mother’s can share their experiences and get support for their needs in dealing with motherhood?

Why would a male person want to be in a place where mother’s talked about their cracked and bleeding nipples, and whether they should be weaning yet? 🚩🚩🚩

I’m wondering what nurturing, cooperative, empathic, fashion loving and communicative males make of the idea that these traits mean that they aren’t male after all.

With the exception of ‘fashion and beauty’, all of my friends, both male and female, exhibit these traits most of the time - we all have off days. My children, both male and female, have been raised to exhibit these behaviours and both value them. There are some stereotypical differences between them in terms of cognitive strengths (boy - maths and science, girl - history and English). Whilst their degree course cohorts are populated predominantly with around a 60/40 split in the sexes in line with stereotypes, it is plain to see that both males and females are interested and good at both subjects.

My friends are a mixed bunch when it comes to beauty and fashion. What is notable is that my children and their friends are into ethical fashion. They buy their clothes from Vinted and spend a lot of their time perusing fashion online. They all take care of their skin and go to the gym…..both sexes.

It is such a regressive notion that any of the above says anything about sex. The good news is none of them would be offended if their sex was questioned because of their preferences and behaviours - it’s too ridiculous to generate that kind of reaction.

You are really having a laugh now, aren’t you? You cannot be serious.

“You really believe (or need to believe) when women socialise with one another they don't have any other common interests other than their biological distinctions? Whilst you might not be willing to accept women have distinctive behaviours their employment, consumerist, special interest, sartorial, life choices self evidently prove they exist in measurable terms.”

The commonalities I share with other female people is the experience of interacting with society with a body that is female. Unless I am joining a group for one specific purpose, I don’t expect to have those ‘common’ interests that you keep mentioning on thread after thread.

In fact, the lack of sharing those common interests is what makes discussion with other female people interesting.

”Being 'treated' is being regarded within the category of woman by other women & included in social pursuits. Examples of social situations would be 'girls' lunches, women's clubs, 'mother's dinners, women's sports, women's bathrooms etc.”

Fuck! That is funny.

Somehow, though, ‘social situations’ then morphed into female sports and female single sex toilets.

No. Male people who score themselves highly on some personality trait questionnaire don’t get to access female single sex provisions. And that is any provision that has been deemed as proportionate to exclude male people.

If women want to include male people in a friendship group that they themselves organise, go for it. Wedging friendship group activities in with single sex provisions is dishonest.

Examples of social situations would be 'girls' lunches, women's clubs, 'mother's dinners, women's sports, women's bathrooms etc.

Having said that am now laughing at this post. I don't go to any of these things, am I now non-binary? 😅

The sheer ridiculousness of the list is testimony to just how useless this theoretical model is for categorising sex. My husband wears more jewellery than me. I think the list must come from an old Cosmopolitan magazine or something.

Do you think OldCrone that if this was part of the getting and maintaining recognition of womanhood, it would stop all the abuse, violence and intimidation from those male people who say they are women? That all that would suddenly disappear if they could be reported to the sex category authority under the threat they would be kicked out of the category?

Going back to the OP, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Transsexuals as they were called back then faced a lot of discrimination such as being sacked from jobs. People sympathised.

The Gender Recognition Act allowed someone to apply for a job using state ID that stated their acquired gender. Again makes sense.

It made sense for gender reassignment to be a protected characteristic, along with others in the Equality Act 2010.

The limits to these acquired gender rights weren't adequately discussed or specified.

You just love those stereotypes, don't you?

Nurturing: Taking care of others' well-being, showing compassion, and being supportive.

Not my strength. Am I a man now?

Cooperation: Working collaboratively with others to achieve a common goal.

Team work is something only women do? Better tell the army to kick out all those useless men and only let women join.

Empathy and sensitivity: Being in tune with the emotions of others and understanding their feelings.

Definitely not something shown by people like Dr Upton and 'Rose' or any other so-called 'transwomen' I can think of. But at least your stereotyping here correctly categorises them as male.

Fashion and beauty: Wearing certain styles of clothing, makeup, or jewellery.

😂😂😂

Communication: Being expressive, verbal, and communicative.

You might be right on this one. Maybe you should admit you're out of your depth here.

“So its upto an individual's subjective personal values how they identify.”

This is something the transmaxxers have already told us.

And thanks again for highlighting the flaws in the behaviourial categorisation model. So, tell us again…. is that behaviour how the individual identifies themselves as having, or as some others identify them as having, or does it have to be as the majority of people identifies them as having ?

Is it aspirational, so someone can identify themselves as being nurturing when they are not, but they want to be?

Can you also explain at what point of life is this behavioural categorisation made? Does it change throughout the day? Does it change depending on the mood? Does it change as experiences change the person?

Again, thanks for highlighting it is purely subjective. Making it irrelevant for the purpose.

Hardly even a mediocre concept for categorising human sex classes for the purpose of accessing single sex provisions.

Being 'treated' is being regarded within the category of woman by other women & included in social pursuits. Examples of social situations would be 'girls' lunches, women's clubs, 'mother's dinners, women's sports, women's bathrooms etc.

Surprised you missed out the girly pillow fights.

But women's sports and toilets exist for different reasons from purely social situations.

We don't have women's toilets for the purpose of "girly chats", they're for women to attend to bodily functions without any males present. No matter how girly those males think they are.

Women's sports are for women. Not mediocre men or those who have attempted to artificially weaken themselves because they think that women are just small, weak men.

Look, it doesn't matter how much oestrogen you put into your system, it doesn't matter if you get castrated and have implants to enhance your moobs, none of this turns a man into a woman.

People can't change sex. Get over it.

And it doesn’t matter how many time you repeat your theory. It doesn’t work for the purpose of categorising humans for accessing single sex provisions.

You can keep doubling down that behaviour is a categorising tool for sex, but it is not. It can be a categorising tool within sex classes if someone wished to do that but there is no coherency for personality traits being used as a permanent category tool for those sex classes.

And no single sex provision has been set up for the Nurturing, Cooperative, Empathetic and sensitive, Fashion and beauty loving, and Communicative female.

Female single sex provision is for female people- those born with a body formed around the production of large gametes, regardless of whether that body has, is or will produce those gametes. There is no need to categorise further at all. And if sex doesn’t matter, there’s no need to exclude anyone.

If you want to have a single sex space for a group of people who are Nurturing, Cooperative, Empathetic and sensitive, Fashion and beauty loving, and Communicative, fill your boots.

No one is taking your words out of context mate. If your words have not been written with the purpose to intimidate women into complying because you have set out the consequences of our non-compliance, everytime people pointed out how your words you would have quickly cleared that up. Instead you doubled down and confirmed you meant exactly what you wrote.

Meanwhile there is no extra context needed to understand :

"Perhaps you don't feel the need to make you self more attractive…or can't?"

Umm, no comprehension fail from me. I think that would be a comprehension fail from you.

We have been through this. No structural traits are changed with extreme body modification that change reproduction capabilities. And all of definition 1 is about reproduction capability. No matter how desperate you are to twist the dictionary to fit your purpose in deconstructing definitions of sex.

No hormonal change or surgery changes the body to produce ova or sperm when it cannot.

The behavioural distinctions a male person has when they say they are female are also irrelevant to reproduction. This is just you desperately attempting to make a convincing argument.

Telling me that I have had a comprehension fail is looking like you are reverting back to abusive tactics.

"Why would any one be treating a man as a ‘woman’ though in any situation where sex didn’t matter?"

Just wow. You really believe (or need to believe) when women socialise with one another they don't have any other common interests other than their biological distinctions? Whilst you might not be willing to accept women have distinctive behaviours their employment, consumerist, special interest, sartorial, life choices self evidently prove they exist in measurable terms.

"And how the fuck does a man know if he is being treated as if he is a woman or just a man within the very wide category of ‘man’? Or in which situation is he being treated like woman or a man and by which people?"

'Treatment' is to consider or regard in a specified way, and dealt with accordingly.

Being 'treated' is being regarded within the category of woman by other women & included in social pursuits. Examples of social situations would be 'girls' lunches, women's clubs, 'mother's dinners, women's sports, women's bathrooms etc.

Back to the old "woman = eunuch with moobs" argument eh.

Having a category boundary that doesn't capture all the people within discrete groups makes that categorisation criteria useless and meaningless.

Really? Tell it to society who maintains behavioural distinctions thru human history. We as humans don't tend to 'keep things going' long term unless they serve a survival purpose.

How many times does this need to be said?
For all the purposes of sex discrimination, both legitimate and illegitimate, sex has to be fully definable.

And how many times does it need to be said competing rights aren't necessarily mutually exclusive? It's not exactly rocket science nor anything new to manage a compromise.

"So for the purposes of showing innate difference between the sexes, they aren't robust. A behaviour that's not stable across cultures, or history, is a learned behaviour and one that is subject to social pressure and expectation."

Lol, this is silly. It's like saying 'cause homosexuality is less expressed in Iran it must be a 'learned' behaviour '. Clearly, cultural pressures repress expressions.
That crying is more expressed in egalitarian countries doesn't mean women don't cry more than men cross culturally.

Women may on average cry more than men, and there may be hormonal as well as social reasons for that. But a woman who doesn't cry remains a woman, and a man who weeps buckets at the drop of a hat is nonetheless a man.

Reducing an entire temperament to a single behaviour isn't the slam dunk you think it is.

My my, taking words out of context is text book argument insecurity.

I must be hitting some very fragile spots….

Behaviourally? They have more in common with men than women so they are more associated behaviourally with men but given they have other associations with women IE biological they qualify as 'women'.

The woman/man category being based on sex distinct associations includes both reproductive & behavioural traits meaning that individuals could go either way in terms of what category they define themselves as. So its upto an individual's subjective personal values how they identify.