More fuckwittery from Eva Wiseman, Observer

[ConstanzeMozart]

fuckwittery
the EHRC ‘insisting’ on single-sex toilets excluding trans people.
Well, only if they try to use the one for the wrong sex.
There are also some bingo points including trans people being excluded from public life, and women who don’t look feminine being harassed in the Ladies.

Do you believe you see this issue clearly?

I'm here aren't I? But you did not persuade me….yet.

Would you consider the idea of a trans genocide to be a moral panic?

You aren’t being serious with this one, I assume. Your test for the meaning of sex rests in whether people check each others’ chromosomes at parties?

The main way English courts determine ordinary usage is with dictionaries. Pre-2010 (and now) the main dictionary definition of sex was based on biology, becuase that is its ordinary meaning.

I still think this is a bit of a tangent with respect to the main SC argument, which was about GRCs, but it’s a tangent that does not support your case.

No its not the correct usage or helpful although I get the inference. Many GC's don't believe in discrimination of trans people, accept their disposition as biological human variation & just want private spaces whilst others seek to remove any legitimacy to their identity claiming their disposition is a dangerous deluded sexual perversion.

And the term 'trans genocide' isn't widely used by trans supporters.

You aren’t being serious with this one, I assume. Your test for the meaning of sex rests in whether people check each others’ chromosomes at parties?

I certainly am because its what we do. My meaning of sex is based on distinguishing characteristics between males & females people use in everyday settings. So both reproductive & secondary sex characteristics qualify.

The main way English courts determine ordinary usage is with dictionaries. Pre-2010 (and now) the main dictionary definition of sex was based on biology, becuase that is its ordinary meaning.

And yet this is not only what people did long before 2010. And Cambridge acknowledges associations BTW. "relating"

female adjective (SEX)

B1
belonging or relating to the sex that can give birth to young or produce eggs:

D'oh.

"Relating to" here covers "female toilets" or "female sports", which don't actually produce eggs or give birth themselves - they're related to the sex that does.

Well yeah the inference is anything can be categorised as female if it relates to the sex that can give birth to young or produce eggs.

And Mem Web is more specific:

sex
1 of 2
noun
ˈseks

1
a
: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures

b
: the sum of the structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that distinguish males and females

I have to say this seems to support my case far more than yours.

Your argument is that pre-2010 a “female changing room” meant one “belonging or relating to the sex that can give birth to young or produce eggs”.

If you take "not' as a relation, I suppose! But that would render the dictionary pretty useless as every definition using the phrase 'relating to' could mean literally anything: the thing itself and everything in a not-relation to it.

But that would render the dictionary pretty useless

That's the thing - once they start off on the word wankery, what's notable is that on the one hand it becomes totally irrelevant to "female" or "woman" - because you could start off on the same idiocy for every single word. But they're not.

You can tell they know exactly what a woman is because they're only doing it for women's words...

A laser focus on trying to undermine their very, very concrete and real target.

It just simply means female is a broad category with many sub categories. Like water can be ice, steam, sea water etc.

But its distinguishing features between male & female humans that's of relevance here. And it clearly isn't just reproductive traits in everyday settings

Bailey, I appreciate the help but all your definitions are based in biology.

The test you proposed (which I checked you were serious about) is that the intended 2010 meaning ties to how people in social situations would perceive or perhaps describe others based on how they look.

Do you really think that’s how legislators intended the law to work?

That a pregnant woman has maternity protection unless she has a beard, say? Or that a man with DSDs might not be protected from sex discrimination laws?

How likely is it that the cocktail-party test is what lawmakers meant to rest this legislation on?

It's like buying alcohol - you're allowed to buy it if you look over 18, right?

Indeed you are.

”typical of” adults is the test. You can’t deny that looking over 18 is typical of adults.

Adult (adj):

(of behaviour, etc.) typical of or suitable for adults:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/adult

When they were 15 & 16, 2 of my cousins were part of a police project in their area. They made themselves up to look older, visited local shops & tried to buy alcohol. If the staff agreed to sell it to them, the police stepped in.

This is an example of why ‘I am who I say I am’ is bollocks. There can be a big gap between looking something and being it.

Another great example.

Water can indeed be those things. The definition doesn’t rest on appearance.

If vodka is occasionally mistaken for water in everyday settings, does that mean that laws relating to water sometimes mean vodka?

I appreciate that intention mattered to protect statutory consistency so there wouldn't be unintended overlap but it created a logistical nightmare in confusion & enforcement. Amending legislation is really what is required here that balances protecting the intention & alleviating the unintended consequences that make the decision unworkable.

She’s a vapid figure moulded by the Guardian like Zoe Williams

So you suggest rewriting the equality act so that when it says ‘woman’ it means “anyone who thinks they feel like a ‘woman’”? How is that a clear legal definition?

This would not address the basis on which women (biological) are discriminated against (our sex and everything that flows from operating as female in a world designed for the male norm).

And will presumably create conflict with all other legislation that mentions ‘men’ and ‘women’ using the original biological meaning.

I think that the absolute last thing Bailey & other gender ideologists want is a clear legal definition of women.

They also don’t care about toilet provision.

So it sounds to me that you are saying that legislators meant a sex-based definition and the SC correctly found that definition. You presumably also think then that EHRC guidance accurately summarises the law.

I personally don’t think that creates unworkable problems. Those seem to have arisen from erroneous guidance, as well as a move by Stonewall and others to promote self-ID as if it were the law (which both sides of the FWS case agreed was not and had never been).

I agree with you that if you want the law to change then passing legislation is the way to go.

I don’t see opposition to this as being in any way illegitimate or fake as you seem to imply.

When TRAs and their various panderers say 'unworkable', what they mean is 'the law says we can't give special men what they want'. It's perfectly workable in practice if you think the privacy, dignity and safety of women and girls is more important than a few men being sad.

Appreciate Stonewall et al spent years misrepresenting the law to make men's feelings paramount, which is creating massive cognitive dissonance. But it doesn't change reality and trying to fuck around with the meaning of words everybody understood until five minutes ago isn't going to alter that.

Whatever you want to say - what started out as a committed grassroots movement has become very successful; so succesful, in fact, that it has managed to influence the public debate and achieve some of its goals.
What was hidden has been uncovered and the issue of radical trans ideology and its negative impact upon women and children has been revealed.

Has it occured to you that most people are probably centre right on social and cultural issues. They value boundaries. They don't want destructive radicalism. They don't want open borders. They know the difference between male and female, and they don't like being shamed and shunned because they don't like the totalitarianism of progressive identity politics.

So calling out " right wing" all of the time is nothing but a pointless tribal, virtue signaling exercise.