What is a woman?

[RandBlade]

Been some remarkably extreme debates in recent years on such a simple question.

The UK Supreme Court today gave a unanimous ruling which seems entirely reasonable and will hopefully take some of the BS arguments off the agenda.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg7pqzk47zo

For me, a trans individual should be treated with respect and should not be treated badly or discriminated against based on being trans. Just as you should not discriminate based on sex, sexual orientation, race or any other protected characteristic.

However where it is proportionate to have a single-sex space, especially for women, then that should apply to women, where it is proportionate to do so. Especially if there are safeguarding concerns.

If someone who is biologically male but wants to identify as female then so long as it does not violate safeguarding, their wishes should be respected as much as is practical. Treat people with respect. However if it violates safeguarding, eg for sport, then a woman's-only space should where required apply to women and not those who identify as women.

Hopefully the heat can be taken out of the debate now and people can agree such a sensible position.

[Loki]

Just to be clear: you want to see transmen in women's spaces?

[RandBlade]

I think its reasonable and proportionate to restrict women's-only spaces, where they are required for safeguarding reasons, to those who both identify as female AND are biologically female.

If a single-sex space is not required, it should be open to all men and women, not just worry about men who identify as women, or vice-versa.

[Loki]

So a transman is no longer a woman, but a transwoman is still a man? Where do trans people exist in this equation? In El Salvador? Or in separate but equal facilities?

Are butch lesbians allowed in women's spaces? How about non-binary people? More importantly, who's going to check whether someone meets your definition of a woman? Will every bathroom come with a genital checker?

[RandBlade]

Its not my definition of a woman, its the biological and legal definition as determined by the law and the Supreme Court.

As for who is going to check that safeguarding procedures are in place and followed, the Designated Safeguarding Lead generally holds ultimate responsibility.

[RandBlade]

Incidentally 'separate but equal facilities' is precisely what the Equalities and Human Rights Commission is recommending today in response to the Supreme Court ruling, that a "third space" may be needed for those who can't use single-sex spaces, which is an entirely logical and reasonable solution that protects them but does not violate the safeguarding of single-sex provisions. Non-binary people can use non-binary facilities, while binary facilities that exist for safeguarding reasons should be restricted to those they exist to safeguard.

I'm changing schools after the Easter break but until the break I was teaching a Year 11 (final year of school in UK, GCSE year, 15/16 age) student who was biologically female but questioning gender identity. They asked me to identify them by a preferred name of the male gender, which I did, including when taking the register (which I do aloud every lesson for safeguarding reasons) where the computer and all legal paperwork gave birth name but I would call out and they would respond to their preferred name. For me, there's no safeguarding issue with using a name they want to be known by, so no reason not to, and no reason not to use the gender-neutral third party singular pronoun of "they".

However the one thing that has been drilled into me since before I began my teacher training is that if I ever had any safeguarding concerns, that is my number one duty and responsibility, overriding all others under all circumstances, which as a parent I 100% agree with. Legally, professionally, contractually and ethically safeguarding is my number one concern, as it should be for anyone else in a position of safety/authority over others, especially the vulnerable such as children. If there are any safeguarding concerns, they should be dealt with properly and never brushed aside as inconvenient.

[Aimless]

So a transman is no longer a woman, but a transwoman is still a man? Where do trans people exist in this equation? In El Salvador? Or in separate but equal facilities?

Are butch lesbians allowed in women's spaces? How about non-binary people? More importantly, who's going to check whether someone meets your definition of a woman? Will every bathroom come with a genital checker?

It's a dirty job but foolish middle-aged assbrains with a grade-school understanding of "biology" must be placated

[RandBlade]

No, it's a serious job and those with a safeguarding responsibility have not only a right but a duty and responsibility to ensure safeguarding happens.

Violating safeguarding is quite rightly Gross Misconduct in my industry and would get us struck off, never to practice again. Quite rightly, too.

A teacher was struck off recently for allowing opposite sex pupils to sleep together on a school trip recently. Ensuring the safeguarding of children is quite literally my day job.

And the Supreme Court is entirely correct to say that biology and sex matters when it comes to safeguarding. You disagree with the Court? You think dogma should override safeguarding concerns?

Edit: 'Treat everyone with respect, don't discriminate against trans individuals and don't violate safeguarding where it matters' is not a reasonable compromise and balance of responsibilities to you?

[Hazir]

I'm leaning towards 'trans-women are women', while having understanding for cis-women having a need for safe spaces. But I also feel like the whole debate is made impossible because nobody seems to be very interested in what these safe spaces actually are on the cis side. Within the more extreme side of the trans 'community' I also see a lack of willingness to see that sometimes their gender will crash very hard against the confines of their biological sex.

I feel there is a middle ground to be found that is acceptable and livable for the most of us. Maybe learn a little from how trans men manage. This middle ground may not be to the liking of extremists on both sides of the debate, but to that I say 'fuck'em'.

[LittleFuzzy]

Been some remarkably extreme debates in recent years on such a simple question.

The UK Supreme Court today gave a unanimous ruling which seems entirely reasonable and will hopefully take some of the BS arguments off the agenda.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg7pqzk47zo

For me, a trans individual should be treated with respect and should not be treated badly or discriminated against based on being trans. Just as you should not discriminate based on sex, sexual orientation, race or any other protected characteristic.

However where it is proportionate to have a single-sex space, especially for women, then that should apply to women, where it is proportionate to do so. Especially if there are safeguarding concerns.

If someone who is biologically male but wants to identify as female then so long as it does not violate safeguarding, their wishes should be respected as much as is practical. Treat people with respect. However if it violates safeguarding, eg for sport, then a woman's-only space should where required apply to women and not those who identify as women.

Hopefully the heat can be taken out of the debate now and people can agree such a sensible position.

Even the biology just isn't that simple. Legislating or ruling on the basis of secondary-school level biology is NONSENSE, Rand. Sex in our species doesn't change but it's still not a binary, and it's not fiscally or politically feasible to provide separate equal and "safe" (by your or your high court's definition) for them all. Even now, your "safe" spaces would not be that because people who with 100% sex and gender-identity matching do not actually meet the "safe" metric, in totals that are leaps and bounds beyond any threat to that "safety" from those they are seeking to exclude with these measures.

I want to be in agreement with Hazir. God knows I want "safe" queer spaces without dealing with het women. But not only is nobody really interested in what these spaces actually are, nobody is willing to honestly address what "safety" is being protected by them and how. We should NOT be discriminating against people or making their lives harder on the basis of preserving a literal delusion.

BTW, thank you, Loki. That was a nice start to my morning.

[Hazir]

I find it unnecessary cruel to tie someone's gender-identity to their biological sex without limits. There may be a grey field, but where is the humanity in denying someone who's done what can be done to transition themselves the gender that conforms to what they feel is the right one.

I also agree LF that sex as the sole arbiter of how we should organize our society is fairly nonsensical. Not only is it a confirmation of the idea that platonic friendship over the sex-boundary is impossible at al, it also creates the illusion of safety that is unrealistic.

[Loki]

BTW, thank you, Loki. That was a nice start to my morning.

🫡

[RandBlade]

I find it unnecessary cruel to tie someone's gender-identity to their biological sex without limits. There may be a grey field, but where is the humanity in denying someone who's done what can be done to transition themselves the gender that conforms to what they feel is the right one.

I also agree LF that sex as the sole arbiter of how we should organize our society is fairly nonsensical. Not only is it a confirmation of the idea that platonic friendship over the sex-boundary is impossible at al, it also creates the illusion of safety that is unrealistic.

Nobody besides extremists who aren't involved is proposing that anybody's gender identity is tied "to their biological sex without limits". Quite the opposite, gender identity is recognised as people desire with the sole limitation that where gender identity clashes with safeguarding rights for others, then safeguarding takes priority over identity.

Which is entirely reasonable.

Equality law recognises the rights of trans individuals, and it recognises the rights of women, or as you put it yourself "cis-women having a need for safe spaces". Well under the law both are recognised, with women in law being cis-women and people with a different identity to their biology being able to live with their identity as they prefer unless for some reason it violates safeguarding in which case the safeguarding for women (cis being redundant there) has to take priority and alternative arrangements are required for those who require them.

Its funny the people on this thread responding "but what about trans" while saying absolutely jack shit about the rights of women. A reasonable balance needs to be reached, you can't just let identity violate safeguarding.

Literally nobody here is saying sex should be the "sole arbiter" of how we organise our society, but its a bloody important one when it comes to safeguarding. Even if some people want to put their heads in the sand and deny that.

[RandBlade]

Even the biology just isn't that simple. Legislating or ruling on the basis of secondary-school level biology is NONSENSE, Rand. Sex in our species doesn't change but it's still not a binary, and it's not fiscally or politically feasible to provide separate equal and "safe" (by your or your high court's definition) for them all. Even now, your "safe" spaces would not be that because people who with 100% sex and gender-identity matching do not actually meet the "safe" metric, in totals that are leaps and bounds beyond any threat to that "safety" from those they are seeking to exclude with these measures.

I want to be in agreement with Hazir. God knows I want "safe" queer spaces without dealing with het women. But not only is nobody really interested in what these spaces actually are, nobody is willing to honestly address what "safety" is being protected by them and how. We should NOT be discriminating against people or making their lives harder on the basis of preserving a literal delusion.

BTW, thank you, Loki. That was a nice start to my morning.

Nothing is ever 100%, but safeguarding exists for a reason. It completely violates all principles of safeguarding or risk-assessment to say "its not 100% so don't bother".

As for "what "safety" is being protected and how" via safeguarding - there has been a plethora of arguments raised here, that were debated in Court and that the Court reached its decision on. And in Parliament, which is why Parliament had passed laws to safeguard women in the past, which the Court based its rulings on too. If you are saying nobody is interested then you're either ignorant or disingenuous.

[Hazir]

It is simply not true that those of us who think protection of trans-women have no interest in women's rights. That is simply not true; I think I am speaking for more people than myself that I think that the answer of 'what is a woman' simply is not answered only by 'those who were gendered woman at birth'. Also the answer isn't all that interesting; because what we are really defining is 'when is a trans-woman without a doubt a woman?'.

And on that count is see a lot of unreasonable exclusion on the side of women/feminists who will not accept that anyone who is not a biological woman could be included in the definition of woman.

There is a complete lack of generosity on the side of these women who very often also have an interpretation of safety that makes them intrinsically victims regardless of the actual situation.

It makes me think of a night some months ago where I was walking my dogs outside at night and talking to a friend on a videocall on my phone. What I wasn't aware of was that behind me a young woman was walking a little bit faster than I in the same direction. When this woman was about to overtake me she suddenly decided I was scary and she started to run to get out of my vicinity. Her safety somehow was compromised by me existing in the same space.

So yeah, I am a bit suspicious when someone is talking in terms of safe spaces, without specifying what a safe space actually is. And if their demands are reasonable even.

[RandBlade]

I'm sorry but it is true from most of the responses here, its merely been absurd whatabouterism like Loki's ridiculous post [already addressed in the court case] and completely glazing over the very real need for women to have safe spaces - though I acknowledged you personally as being one person who acknowledged that [cis-]women do need safe spaces. As for your anecdote, I'm sorry that your feelings were hurt by a stranger not wanting to walk near you. Did you speak to that stranger and ask her what her background is? Has she been assaulted, raped, abused? Does she know women who have been? Could that maybe, just maybe be why she is risk averse and trump some hurt feelings? My wife when walking by herself at night won't walk near a male stranger either, and walks with her keys between her fingers and a rape whistle attached to them too in case she needs to protect herself - that's a reality she needs to live with and you and don't.

You question whether the "demands" are reasonable, but it is against equalities law already to segregate spaces based on gender, unless the reasons for doing so are reasonable. So yes, if its segregated, its automatically because there must be a reasonable reason, such as safeguarding and protection. It must be, or excluding males is already against equalities law.

Yes, having a space free from people with a penis is necessary sometimes for women. Which is why women's safe spaces have been a thing for a very long time and exists as a carved out protection from equalities law that normally provides that if a service is open to the public it must be open to all of the public without discriminating based on protected characteristics. If that hurts your feelings, well hurt feelings doesn't trump equalities law for a bloody good reason.

If we flip this judgment on its head and defined women legally as anything other than what some people want to call "cis" women then there would be no possibility under the law to provide protected spaces for women that you recognised are needed, even if the demands are reasonable. That is ridiculous, which is why the court quite rightly ruled as it did.

Its worth noting that since the court made its ruling it has been accepted now by all parties in the UK as a sensible ruling, even the SNP - with some discontent from the Greens but they're not advocating changing it. This is quite a change from a few years ago when this debate kicked off when it looked like "self-ID" was going to become the law and it was proposed to put "trans women" into females prisons which sparked a lot of outrage. Should a rapist ever be put in a female prison? 100% of rapists in the UK are biologically male, and 100% of the female gender rapists by self-ID are trans women.

Would it ever be acceptable to put a biological male who has raped a biological female into a prison for biological females? Had the ruling been the reverse, that would have been the outcome if they identified as female.

* Rape in the UK is the forcible penetration without consent of a vagina with a penis. All other forms of sexual assault are sexual assault, not rape.

[Hazir]

I'm sorry but it is true from most of the responses here, its merely been absurd whatabouterism like Loki's ridiculous post [already addressed in the court case] and completely glazing over the very real need for women to have safe spaces - though I acknowledged you personally as being one person who acknowledged that [cis-]women do need safe spaces. As for your anecdote, I'm sorry that your feelings were hurt by a stranger not wanting to walk near you. Did you speak to that stranger and ask her what her background is? Has she been assaulted, raped, abused? Does she know women who have been? Could that maybe, just maybe be why she is risk averse and trump some hurt feelings? My wife when walking by herself at night won't walk near a male stranger either, and walks with her keys between her fingers and a rape whistle attached to them too in case she needs to protect herself - that's a reality she needs to live with and you and don't.

You question whether the "demands" are reasonable, but it is against equalities law already to segregate spaces based on gender, unless the reasons for doing so are reasonable. So yes, if its segregated, its automatically because there must be a reasonable reason, such as safeguarding and protection. It must be, or excluding males is already against equalities law.

Yes, having a space free from people with a penis is necessary sometimes for women. Which is why women's safe spaces have been a thing for a very long time and exists as a carved out protection from equalities law that normally provides that if a service is open to the public it must be open to all of the public without discriminating based on protected characteristics. If that hurts your feelings, well hurt feelings doesn't trump equalities law for a bloody good reason.

If we flip this judgment on its head and defined women legally as anything other than what some people want to call "cis" women then there would be no possibility under the law to provide protected spaces for women that you recognised are needed, even if the demands are reasonable. That is ridiculous, which is why the court quite rightly ruled as it did.

Its worth noting that since the court made its ruling it has been accepted now by all parties in the UK as a sensible ruling, even the SNP - with some discontent from the Greens but they're not advocating changing it. This is quite a change from a few years ago when this debate kicked off when it looked like "self-ID" was going to become the law and it was proposed to put "trans women" into females prisons which sparked a lot of outrage. Should a rapist ever be put in a female prison? 100% of rapists in the UK are biologically male, and 100% of the female gender rapists by self-ID are trans women.

Would it ever be acceptable to put a biological male who has raped a biological female into a prison for biological females? Had the ruling been the reverse, that would have been the outcome if they identified as female.

* Rape in the UK is the forcible penetration without consent of a vagina with a penis. All other forms of sexual assault are sexual assault, not rape.

As usual you missed the relevant information from my anecdote; before she started to act funny I wasn't even aware of her presence. Because she was walking behind me in the dark and I was in a video call. Without her running show she could have stayed unnoticed by me.

[RandBlade]

As usual you missed the relevant information from my anecdote; before she started to act funny I wasn't even aware of her presence. Because she was walking behind me in the dark and I was in a video call. Without her running show she could have stayed unnoticed by me.

And you have missed the relevant bit . . . its not about you.

Whether you were aware of her presence or not is absolutely not relevant. She was aware of yours, and she had no idea who you were, and that is enough.

How you feel about her actions is irrelevant, its not about you, its about her and her safety.

This is the problem with those who wish to violate or disrespect safe spaces. Women have a reason to be afraid and its not about you, so don't take it personally, its about the plenty of predators that are out there and being risk-averse is the appropriate response when you are vulnerable.

Which is why when women go into a legally protected women's-only space, protected by law, they have the right to insist that it is actually women-only there. Actual women, not people who identify as women.

[LittleFuzzy]

Nothing is ever 100%, but safeguarding exists for a reason. It completely violates all principles of safeguarding or risk-assessment to say "its not 100% so don't bother".

As for "what "safety" is being protected and how" via safeguarding - there has been a plethora of arguments raised here, that were debated in Court and that the Court reached its decision on. And in Parliament, which is why Parliament had passed laws to safeguard women in the past, which the Court based its rulings on too. If you are saying nobody is interested then you're either ignorant or disingenuous.

I didn't say it wasn't addressed, Rand. I said it wasn't honestly addressed. And yes, safeguarding exists for a reason. More than one, in fact. One of those reasons, actually improving safety, is useful and valuable. Another reason, "safety pageantry" presenting an illusion so that people FEEL safe, whether or not they actually are, is a poor one and does not provide sufficient value for the methods applied. Wanna guess which one I think is more on display here?

[LittleFuzzy]

You question whether the "demands" are reasonable, but it is against equalities law already to segregate spaces based on gender, unless the reasons for doing so are reasonable. So yes, if its segregated, its automatically because there must be a reasonable reason, such as safeguarding and protection. It must be, or excluding males is already against equalities law.

Circular argument, doesn't prove a damn thing. You just take your conclusion as your basic assumption for reaching that conclusion. Come on Rand, you know better and have done better.

100% of rapists in the UK are biologically male,

Really? What's the research demonstrating that, may I ask? I could see 100% of convictions being against men but there's genuine evidence that there is not a single biologically female rapist in the UK?

* Rape in the UK is the forcible penetration without consent of a vagina with a penis. All other forms of sexual assault are sexual assault, not rape.

Oh, nevermind. You're just playing a ridiculous semantic game to distort the truth and present something that has no kin to reality or anything a reasonable person should be considering in this whole line of argument. What Trumpist nonsense are you gonna spout next in your application of Big Lie agitprop?

[RandBlade]

I didn't say it wasn't addressed, Rand. I said it wasn't honestly addressed. And yes, safeguarding exists for a reason. More than one, in fact. One of those reasons, actually improving safety, is useful and valuable. Another reason, "safety pageantry" presenting an illusion so that people FEEL safe, whether or not they actually are, is a poor one and does not provide sufficient value for the methods applied. Wanna guess which one I think is more on display here?

Your disregard for whether people feel safe or not is telling.

Ensuring that people both are safe, and feel safe, are both quite legitimate reasons for single-sex spaces. It is a legal requirement in this country for instance that all employers must by law provide their employees with single sex toilets (or universal lockable fully self-contained WCs including sink and not just a cubicle). That is despite the fact that only employees may be using the toilets either way so should be safe either way - in order to ensure women have dignity and feel safe too, the law gives that not as a request but as a legal duty and requirement.

So yes, if you violate the law by permitting males into a legally-required female-only space, making the women feel unsafe - then not only are you acting unreasonably, you are (as the Court quite rightly determined) breaking the law in doing so.

Circular argument, doesn't prove a damn thing. You just take your conclusion as your basic assumption for reaching that conclusion. Come on Rand, you know better and have done better.

Its not remotely circular, it was a conditional statement with the word "if" in it. Do you need it drawing out with a logic flow chart to see the conditional and the lack of any circularity?

In any conditional statement, if the condition is true then it is axiomatic that it is true, because the condition has been met. If the condition is false, then it is axiomatic that it is false.

Single sex spaces are only permitted by law if there is a reasonable requirement for one. Therefore legally it is axiomatic that if one legally exists, it is because of a reasonable requirement, because if it was not reasonable, then it is already against the law. That is not circular, it is a self-evidently always true axiom.

Really? What's the research demonstrating that, may I ask? I could see 100% of convictions being against men but there's genuine evidence that there is not a single biologically female rapist in the UK?

Oh, nevermind. You're just playing a ridiculous semantic game to distort the truth and present something that has no kin to reality or anything a reasonable person should be considering in this whole line of argument. What Trumpist nonsense are you gonna spout next in your application of Big Lie agitprop?

LOL you could not be more backwards. What is Trumpist is to have a disregard for, and disrespect for, the rule of law or the truth - and a desire to replace the rule of law, and reality, with your own "alternative facts".

I know you Americans have alternative idioms and linguistic definitions for some words but the literal and legal definition of rape in the UK involves the penetration of a penis without consent. That is the only truthful and legal meaning of the word rape in this country. Anyone who uses the word with any other meaning is not doing so accurately or truthfully. Parliament has repeatedly in recent years updated sexual offences, especially introducing new ones that involve online spaces, and it has been a deliberate decision of Parliament following debates that due to the uniquely abhorrent nature of rape, as defined, that it deliberately remains unique with its own term and is not watered down by calling other offences 'rape'. That is the rule of law, and the actual truth, in our language and our law, regardless of any idioms you may use.

If you think the law is inconvenient and wish to disregard the rule of law and truth and replace reality with your own alternative facts, the rule of law be damned, then you are the Trumpist. You do not get to casually disregard the rule of law otherwise.

EDIT: To further emphasise the point, if you call someone a "rapist" and they have not been convicted of the crime of rape, then that is defamation - and if they have been convicted, they have been because they committed the crime and were found guilty of rape, which entails penetration with a penis. To call anyone else a rapist would be slander/libel.

[Hazir]

And you have missed the relevant bit . . . its not about you.

Whether you were aware of her presence or not is absolutely not relevant. She was aware of yours, and she had no idea who you were, and that is enough.

How you feel about her actions is irrelevant, its not about you, its about her and her safety.

This is the problem with those who wish to violate or disrespect safe spaces. Women have a reason to be afraid and its not about you, so don't take it personally, its about the plenty of predators that are out there and being risk-averse is the appropriate response when you are vulnerable.

Which is why when women go into a legally protected women's-only space, protected by law, they have the right to insist that it is actually women-only there. Actual women, not people who identify as women.

Yes, she didn't know who I was. That's what you get when you go out of your home, you encounter people you don't know.

You're entering the realm of paranoia if you perceive someone who clearly doesn't know you are there, through his actions, as a threat. The issue is not what I feel about that situation but the validation of paranoia.

Also, under your pre-historic definition of rape trans women are incapable of raping anyone after bottom surgery. They are likely victims of rape though in prisons organised on the basis of biological sex.

[Aimless]

Circular argument, doesn't prove a damn thing. You just take your conclusion as your basic assumption for reaching that conclusion. Come on Rand, you know better and have done better.



Really? What's the research demonstrating that, may I ask? I could see 100% of convictions being against men but there's genuine evidence that there is not a single biologically female rapist in the UK?



Oh, nevermind. You're just playing a ridiculous semantic game to distort the truth and present something that has no kin to reality or anything a reasonable person should be considering in this whole line of argument. What Trumpist nonsense are you gonna spout next in your application of Big Lie agitprop?

A funny and also entirely unsurprising twist is that the definition given is false - the Law of England and Wales, Scots Law, and the Law of Northern Ireland all include penetration of the anus or the mouth in their definitions of rape.

Fortunately, men don't have anuses or mouths, so they can't be raped even though they share bathroom spaces and changing rooms with the Dickborn.

[LittleFuzzy]

Your disregard for whether people feel safe or not is telling.

That's your privilege showing. Actual threats to safety are effectively alien to your experience, so you elevate feeling comfortable in your safety to the same level of importance, above harm to others or exposing them to genuine unsafety that doesn't violate what you're comfortable feeling on their behalf.

Its not remotely circular, it was a conditional statement with the word "if" in it. Do you need it drawing out with a logic flow chart to see the conditional and the lack of any circularity?

In any conditional statement, if the condition is true then it is axiomatic that it is true, because the condition has been met. If the condition is false, then it is axiomatic that it is false.

Single sex spaces are only permitted by law if there is a reasonable requirement for one. Therefore legally it is axiomatic that if one legally exists, it is because of a reasonable requirement, because if it was not reasonable, then it is already against the law. That is not circular, it is a self-evidently always true axiom.

Someone would only call you a brain-dead moron if you were one. I am, right now, calling you a brain-dead moron. Axiomatically it must be the case that you are, in fact, a brain-dead MORON.

It's circular reasoning, Rand. All logic is GIGO, and you're just feeding your conclusion back into your premise. It is logically secure and still totally wrong. Your "axiom" is not a valid one, it is not something that can or should be accepted without proof.

LOL you could not be more backwards. What is Trumpist is to have a disregard for, and disrespect for, the rule of law or the truth - and a desire to replace the rule of law, and reality, with your own "alternative facts".

I know you Americans have alternative idioms and linguistic definitions for some words but the literal and legal definition of rape in the UK involves the penetration of a penis without consent.

Not in the US, nor any of the most similar Commonwealth countries to yours and mine. It's completely immaterial though. With such an incredibly narrow definition, why should you, I, or anyone else care to use that as the metric? Therein lies your Trumpist aspirations. You're deliberately setting a distorted picture that in no way reflects the reality we're discussing and trying to use that to play "gotcha" victory-point games. You threw that out as a red herring to distract from your crap position.

[RandBlade]

That's your privilege showing. Actual threats to safety are effectively alien to your experience, so you elevate feeling comfortable in your safety to the same level of importance, above harm to others or exposing them to genuine unsafety that doesn't violate what you're comfortable feeling on their behalf.

Oh FFS, that's not remotely what I said. You are in such a privileged position that you don't understand or care why laws have been passed, over a long period of time, to ensure the safety of women as well as their comfort in feeling safe - so you wish to throw it all away as meaningless. Its not meaningless.

Someone would only call you a brain-dead moron if you were one. I am, right now, calling you a brain-dead moron. Axiomatically it must be the case that you are, in fact, a brain-dead MORON.

It's circular reasoning, Rand. All logic is GIGO, and you're just feeding your conclusion back into your premise. It is logically secure and still totally wrong. Your "axiom" is not a valid one, it is not something that can or should be accepted without proof.

Whoosh, the point has gone well and truly over your head.

IF there is no proof, then it is illegal to exclude one sex from a public space. That is pre-existing law. If there is no proof, then it is illegal to create a women's-only space, or a men's-only one, and doing so can lead to you being taken to court or tribunal.

If you have proof, then QED you have proof, that's not circular, its a given because of the fact we have already said that you have proof. You don't then get to say "oh where's the proof" after accepting that proof exists by accepting it is a legal space that is only permissible if it has proof. The proof is why it exists, and if the proof is not there, it should be shut down.

Not in the US, nor any of the most similar Commonwealth countries to yours and mine. It's completely immaterial though. With such an incredibly narrow definition, why should you, I, or anyone else care to use that as the metric? Therein lies your Trumpist aspirations. You're deliberately setting a distorted picture that in no way reflects the reality we're discussing and trying to use that to play "gotcha" victory-point games. You threw that out as a red herring to distract from your crap position.

It was not to play any games, it was to make the point under our law that a rapist is one who has used their penis to sexually penetrate another without consent - and question whether it is therefore acceptable to put a convicted rapist (ie by definition convicted of using their penis to rape others) into a female-only prison?

Is that safe for the other women, to put a convicted rapist on their ward, given that a rapist is someone who has raped with a penis and it is a women's-only ward?

[LittleFuzzy]

Oh FFS, that's not remotely what I said. You are in such a privileged position that you don't understand or care why laws have been passed, over a long period of time, to ensure the safety of women as well as their comfort in feeling safe - so you wish to throw it all away as meaningless. Its not meaningless.

Safety isn't meaningless. The illusion of safety is though. By definition.

Whoosh, the point has gone well and truly over your head.

IF there is no proof, then it is illegal to exclude one sex from a public space. That is pre-existing law. If there is no proof, then it is illegal to create a women's-only space, or a men's-only one, and doing so can lead to you being taken to court or tribunal.

If you have proof, then QED you have proof, that's not circular, its a given because of the fact we have already said that you have proof. You don't then get to say "oh where's the proof" after accepting that proof exists by accepting it is a legal space that is only permissible if it has proof. The proof is why it exists, and if the proof is not there, it should be shut down.

Which isn't what you said. "if it's there its automatically because there must be a reasonable reason" The existence was proof there was justification for it. And you proffered this in response to a challenge about expanding/"clarifying" its application to a distinct sub-population which has NOT had behavior and interactions studied extensively and exhaustively for decades. Passing a law does not axiomatically prove the law is actually just nor required. No legislature, executive, nor judiciary deserves nor should receive such deference.

It was not to play any games, it was to make the point under our law that a rapist is one who has used their penis to sexually penetrate another without consent - and question whether it is therefore acceptable to put a convicted rapist (ie by definition convicted of using their penis to rape others) into a female-only prison?

Is that safe for the other women, to put a convicted rapist on their ward, given that a rapist is someone who has raped with a penis and it is a women's-only ward?

Is it safe to put someone convicted of sexually assaulting men with their penis in mens-only ward? What if they were only convicted of sodomizing other men with a baseball bat? Is it safe to put the (admittedly more rare) women convicted of violence (sexual or otherwise) against women in a women's only ward? Is it safe for convicted trans women to put them in the mens-only ward with people guilty of sexual assault against women (or men) with their penis? Yes. you are playing games. Your point is deliberate obfuscation and attempts to distort the topic you claim to be addressing.

[RandBlade]

Safety isn't meaningless. The illusion of safety is though. By definition.

The feeling of safety is not. Again that is why there is a legal requirement that employers must offer single-sex bathrooms/changing rooms, or universal lockable ones (including sinks within the lockable area). Even though only employees may be in the area, women have a legal right to get changed without a man in the changing room with them, even though the man may be a colleague so they should be safe either way. A legal right that has been breached by employers not only permitting males into female changing areas, but then disciplining any women who object.

Which isn't what you said. "if it's there its automatically because there must be a reasonable reason" The existence was proof there was justification for it. And you proffered this in response to a challenge about expanding/"clarifying" its application to a distinct sub-population which has NOT had behavior and interactions studied extensively and exhaustively for decades. Passing a law does not axiomatically prove the law is actually just nor required. No legislature, executive, nor judiciary deserves nor should receive such deference.

Wrong. I said that the law only permits single sex spaces if there is a reasonable requirement for them as otherwise they're already illegal.

Is it safe to put someone convicted of sexually assaulting men with their penis in mens-only ward?

As safe as it can be, considering they're a male convicted rapist, then a male prison is the right place for them.

What if they were only convicted of sodomizing other men with a baseball bat?

Then guards need to keep an eye on them, but again considering they are convicted criminals and they are male, then yes, the male prison ward is the right place for them.

Is it safe to put the (admittedly more rare) women convicted of violence (sexual or otherwise) against women in a women's only ward?

Same again, considering they are female convicted criminals then a female ward is the right place for them.

Is it safe for convicted trans women to put them in the mens-only ward with people guilty of sexual assault against women (or men) with their penis?

Considering "trans women" are males, then yes, they should be in a male ward. If its not safe for them then they should be offered protective solitary custody, or a trans ward if sufficient numbers exist, but they should not be with actual women on a women's-only ward when they are males who have been convicted of rape.

Yes. you are playing games. Your point is deliberate obfuscation and attempts to distort the topic you claim to be addressing.

No games.

That you are so far gone that you don't see the problem with putting male convicted rapists in a female only ward, when women have no place to go as they are locked there as prisoners but you're going to add male rapists into the mix shows just how mad you have become.

[LittleFuzzy]

The feeling of safety is not. Again that is why there is a legal requirement that employers must offer single-sex bathrooms/changing rooms, or universal lockable ones (including sinks within the lockable area). Even though only employees may be in the area, women have a legal right to get changed without a man in the changing room with them, even though the man may be a colleague so they should be safe either way. A legal right that has been breached by employers not only permitting males into female changing areas, but then disciplining any women who object.

The fact that you keep repeating drivel like "colleagues would be safe" demonstrates again you're just talking about what would make you feel comfortable, regardless of the danger involved.

Wrong. I said that the law only permits single sex spaces if there is a reasonable requirement for them as otherwise they're already illegal.

I quoted what you said. It ain't the same thing.

As safe as it can be, considering they're a male convicted rapist, then a male prison is the right place for them.
Then guards need to keep an eye on them, but again considering they are convicted criminals and they are male, then yes, the male prison ward is the right place for them.
Same again, considering they are female convicted criminals then a female ward is the right place for them.
Considering "trans women" are males, then yes, they should be in a male ward. If its not safe for them then they should be offered protective solitary custody, or a trans ward if sufficient numbers exist, but they should not be with actual women on a women's-only ward when they are males who have been convicted of rape.


No games.

That you are so far gone that you don't see the problem with putting male convicted rapists in a female only ward, when women have no place to go as they are locked there as prisoners but you're going to add male rapists into the mix shows just how mad you have become.

Don't talk to me about being too far gone, you blind lying rat. I presented four situations which are identical in ALL WAYS to the danger and threat you claimed to be talking about, and you just ignored it all because the danger wasn't manifested as tab P into Slot V. This isn't about safety at all. This is just your internalized expression of so-called "chivalrous" misogyny.

[RandBlade]

Male on male violence is not identical in danger or threat to male on female violence.

Female on female violence is not identical in danger or threat to male on female violence.

Male on female violence is in a league of its own in danger and threat.

[LittleFuzzy]

Male on male violence is not identical in danger or threat to male on female violence.

Female on female violence is not identical in danger or threat to male on female violence.

Male on female violence is in a league of its own in danger and threat.

Sexual violence, not violence in general, and only in comparative frequency across the general non-incarcaerated population. You are not comparing like to like or with the actually applicable statistics.