lol, what a sack of shit. Drink

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/12/...starting-2024/

Wow, local council lockdown of movements controlled by a permit system to save the planet.

Someone ate the onion. . .

White man who murdered an interracial lesbian couple and their adopted child to be housed in a women’s prison

https://mandystadtmiller.substack.co...s-is-the?sd=pf

I wonder what the cutoff point is when a man has been accused of a crime and most likely will go to Prison, that they can change gender and then end up going to a woman's prison. (not saying this happened here, just a general thought).
E.G: Man commits crime, decides they are really a woman and wants to change gender a few months before sentencing. Does that qualify for he to then be a she and go to a woman's prison?
Or what if they start transitioning to a woman and then commit a crime? Do they go to a male or female prison?

The principle of "Self-ID" means no transitioning is necessary. All that is required is for one to announce that one identifies as something, and one is that thing. Instantly. It's retroactive too - it means that one was always that thing, even if one did not know it at the time.

Oh no! Here come the consequences to my actions

Even when the action is stating a fact.

Given our history of using "facts" to oppress people, I don't find anything compelling about that statement.

All lesbians are women.
No men are women.
therefore
No men are lesbians.

It's the simplest statement in all of logic.

Oh, I guess oppression is fine when it's logical. 🤷

And as we all know, men sure have been oppressed.

Indeed, there are no shortage of circumstances where men are included amongst those being oppressed.

With strict definitions and application of logic used to separate people by their vulnerabilities, and the needs of their oppressors.

Norwegian law affirms Christine Jentoft as a woman.

And yet he’s not.

You're wrongly conflating sex & gender, again.

In Norway (like a growing number of progressive countries) the collaborative consensus has determined that the social construct 'women' can include transgender people.

You can declare whatever you like (sometimes with consequences) but that doesn't make it true.

“Woman” is a category that does not include males.

Many countries including New Zealand, Australia & the UK have some kind of gender recognition act where males can be included in the category woman.

Law gives companies and corporations the status of a legal person, even though clearly companies and corporations are not actually people. That the law allows a male to change his legal documentation to state "woman" instead of "man", doesn't mean he is actually a woman, any more than a company is an actual person because it has legal personhood.

There is a clear distinction in law between non-humans with legal personality (juridical persons) and humans (natural persons). So both entities aren’t under the category human.

Gender recognition acts don’t say transwomen are non-woman with woman rights, rather they include them in the category of women.

What makes someone a woman is how they self-identify but having this legitimized through law is important.

Nah dude pretty sure it’s having a body designed to produce eggs

That would be a female.

So close
 

And the word for sexually mature human females is

... loaded?

If a sexually mature human female identifies as a woman then they are a woman. If they don't then they're not.
Conversely if a sexually mature human male identifies as a woman then they are a woman.

Biological sex doesn't determine these categories because we're talking about gender. It's in our heads not biology.

Then what you’re describing is a religious belief.

When you say "gender" you are probably referring to what I would call "clothing" - or the most common expression of gender. The same way birds may have different coloured feathers to signify their "biological purpose". If a man wears clothing that was intended to be worn by someone whose sex is female, then he is pretending to be ("identifying as") a woman. This part is not lost on me. I realize he is expressing his /desire to act as/ a woman.

His gender /expression/ is that OF a woman. He is identifying AS - but IS not - a woman. He may find that being in character AS a woman is fun, or perhaps a relief for his mental issues, and he may choose to live his life in character. But if he sees a stereotypical woman stuck on the side of the road with a flat tyre, he will still be able to stop, hitch up his dress, and change her car tyre to get her moving again. He has not lost his utility, despite his clothing. Nor has he gained any utility by wearing a dress. It's just clothing.

When Lou Ferrigno puts in coloured contacts and paints himself green, going into character, he is pretending to be - identifying as - the Incredible Hulk. But he is not actually a superhero. He just goes to the effort to look like one and while children with cancer that he hypothetically visits may be convinced he's actually "the Incredible Hulk", and he could change his name by law to be Bruce Banner, people with a bit more experience in the world know he's just pretending. A state manufactured ID card saying "Bruce Banner" while he's painted green does not make him an actual superhero.

If someone else also wears coloured contacts and paints themselves green, and expresses himself as "the Hulk", people will also realize who they are pretending to be. They may refer to them as "the Hulk" for the evening and buy them drinks and have a good time, and maybe go home and smear the sheets green if that's their thing, but they will know it's not the REAL Hulk. Simply wearing a costume does not make one genuine. The Hulk imposter may argue that there is no difference, change THEIR name to Bruce Banner, and that the Hulk is just a social construct, but the wise will not be fooled. The REAL Hulk is Lou Ferrigno. Despite the Hulk being a social construct - something that is not real and merely invented by society - it's a highly valued title which we will not happily bestow upon any cheap imposter. You can if you wish, but there is no reason that others have to follow your lead.

You're almost there.

Like being religious, or a sports fan, or conservative; gender is also a socially constructed form of identity. It's an internal perception not dependent on anything to do with your physical body.

It's kinda weird that you feel like you need to step in to stop people from being who they want to be.

@DrTiTus I have to admit that's some top tier shitposting, I enjoyed reading that

Thus for the perception, and the identity, to exist, it has to be subjectively experienced. So a transgender male who identifies as a woman reverts to being a man upon death. In fact, reverts to being a man whenever the consciousness that creates the alternate, subjective, reality is not present. The transgender male who identifies as a woman while awake is a man while asleep - because there's no consciousness there to actively participate in the alternate self-constructed reality.

This inevitably becomes a dualist discussion of a self that exists independent of the corporeal body. That is to say, a soul. Which just reinforces the obviousness of the fact that we are talking about religious belief.

The state of such a person can only be known if observed and any such observation is going to result in a change to that person's state. So any state we might claim about a person tells us about the system making that claim.

There is no absolute, objective state any such person exists in.

Ideologically decoupling behaviour, identity from sex ✔
Repurposing words and retroactively changing their meaning to support ideology, no matter how moral or altruistic, and forcing that change on others as "fact" ❌

https://twitter.com/DalgetySusan/sta...99110810128384

Watch this man, protesting the screening of a women's rights film, claim to be "an adult human female" at 0:11.

Yes
If a male identifying as a woman dies then yes there is no way to confirm their gender but there's no default gender based on biology. Like if someone gay dies they don't become straight.

This is a bit of an eurocentric distortion as over the course of much of human history different societies have lived with fluid notions of masculinity and femininity.

The sky is blue

It wasn't too clear what point was trying to be made there.

Especially given there those who treat language as sacrosanct, definitions being the final word. To stray from definition is to stray from reason, from credibility, from truth.

I’m just so relieved that this literally could never happen