Thread: Executive Order: Women are Adult Biologically Female Humans

Originally Posted by Looper

There are countless reasons why society needs a biologically grounded definition of 'woman'

ok - name one where 'person' would not suffice ?

^There are 2 questions implicit in your query Baldrick

1. Should society distinguish between males and females for any reason
2. If so then should the male female distinction be based on biology (traditional definition) or subjective gender identity belief (new definition formed as part of the Trans movement)

I think the answer to 1 is Yes. We should have a distinction for:

1. Female sports
2. Female prisons
3. Female change rooms
4. Female toilets

I think the answer to 2 is biology so that we can:

1. Make female sports safe for females
2. Make female sports competitive for females
3. Make female prisons safe from encroachment by males claiming to be females.
4. Make female change rooms safe from encroachment by males claiming to be females.
5. Make female toilets safe from encroachment by males claiming to be females.

You don't have to agree with all the items in both lists but if you agree with at least 1 item from each list then we need a definition of the term woman that can be referenced for adjudicating the relevant rules.

On top of these practical reasons, gender ideology had become quite corrosive in undermining simple assertions such as the reality of biological sex in humans. The gender ideologues assert that sex is not a biological reality but merely a social construct. This is a rather silly assertion but had got enough traction to cost people their jobs and livelihoods for saying it is not true. A ruling from authority on the reality of sex as a binary concept resolves the issue.

Originally Posted by Looper

^There are 2 questions implicit in your query Baldrick

no there is not

Originally Posted by Looper

safe

I have heard your arguments before on instinct , but think them specious - the human brains connection are trained though life and are malleable, and pushing the patriarchal ideology makes people 'unsafe'

Originally Posted by baldrick

pushing the patriarchal ideology makes people 'unsafe'

I would normally think that anybody saying this kind of thing on TD was being ironic. But with you, Baldrick, I am not sure.

The essential question is: Do you think society needs to distinguish between biological males and females for any reason?

Various interlocutors have sidestepped the question by responding that

1. It is not as important as other issues
2. It is a distraction from evil stuff that Trump is up to

But those are answers to 2 different questions

Here are the 3 questions all together

1. Is it useful for any reason to have a legal distinction between biological males and females
2. How important is this issue compared to other issues
3. Do you think this issue is a distraction from evil stuff

We still only have answers to 2 and 3 from Harry, Snubs and Beachbound so far

We are still waiting for an answer to 1

Originally Posted by Looper

How important is this issue compared to other issues

It shouldn't be important at all compared to the shit show thats going on globally but a bunch of blokes who pop some pills to grow tits and shave less want to be recognised as women, and for that fukin liberals and lefties have been caroused into making it the cause celebre, forcing govt institutions to bend the knee and re-write texts from biology to childrens books without any fukin scientific support for all their gender bollix.

The fact is a bloke doesn't have XX chromosomes and no matter how much these wannabe trannies shout about being women their ain't fukin women. So pop your frocks on, puts some make up on and go out dressed like circus freeks but you have no right to a place in wonems prisons, wards in hospitals or toilets.

Originally Posted by Looper

We still only have answers to 2 and 3 from Harry, Snubs and Beachbound so far

We are still waiting for an answer to 1

Pretty sure that's 'Toffee? Mmmm'.

^What is your opinion on question 1?

Originally Posted by Looper

1. Is it useful for any reason to have a legal distinction between biological males and females
2. How important is this issue compared to other issues
3. Do you think this issue is a distraction from evil stuff

Leaving aside questions 2 and 3, which you have already covered.

The Supreme Court decision goes against the Scottish one, but it doesn't actually seem to be anything more than legalese. As the court said:

The Supreme Court judges stressed that their ruling should not be seen as an attack on transgender people. They said it “does not remove or diminish the important protections … for trans people” under the Equality Act, which bans discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment.

So what the fuck was it actually for then?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

it doesn't actually seem to be anything more than legalese

I don't have the full quote of the supreme court ruling in front of me, but as far as I understand it was a ruling, similar to the Executive Order, providing a legal definition of 'woman' in terms of biology.

A legal definition of some form is where you need to start if you want anything to happen w.r.t. the various issues such as sports and change-rooms.

Originally Posted by Looper

I don't have the full quote of the supreme court ruling in front of me, but as far as I understand it was a ruling, similar to the Executive Order, providing a legal definition of 'woman' in terms of biology.

I don't think it was, Looper. It was a ruling about the Equality Act 2010. It ruled that in the Equality Act 2010, ‘sex’ means biological sex; the protected characteristic of sex in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex.

The Supreme Court was asked to decide on the proper interpretation of the 2010 Equality Act, which applies across Britain.

Lord Hodge said the central question was how the words "woman" and "sex" are defined in the legislation.

He told the court: "The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.

Supreme Court backs '''biological''' definition of woman - BBC News

It has clarified a point of law that is applicable in England, Scotland and Wales.

Stop trying to be logical

Originally Posted by Looper

The essential question is: Do you think society needs to distinguish between biological males and females for any reason?

Only if you think that it is required for their protection.

Originally Posted by Looper

1. Should society distinguish between males and females for any reason

Yes for shoe and clothing sizes.

Originally Posted by Molle

Yes for shoe and clothing sizes.

What, can't you get your favourite Dorothy Perkins in a size 26?

Originally Posted by Neverna

I don't think it was, Looper. It was a ruling about the Equality Act 2010. It ruled that in the Equality Act 2010, ‘sex’ means biological sex; the protected characteristic of sex in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex.

Fair enough, the legal mechanics of the UK ruling were quite different to those of the US executive order.

But the legal consequences of each were almost the same, I think. For example any sporting body wishing to change tack and start excluding trans-women from female sports now has a legal reference point to justify their actions in each jurisdiction.

Both actions will also embolden bodies who have been thinking secretly about the merits of making such changes, but have been too scared of the terrifying trans-lobby to put their heads above the parapet and make the first move.

Originally Posted by Looper

Fair enough, the legal mechanics of the UK ruling were quite different to those of the US executive order.

But the legal consequences of each were almost the same, I think. For example any sporting body wishing to change tack and start excluding trans-women from female sports now has a legal reference point to justify their actions in each jurisdiction.

Yes, it seems that way.

Sport governing bodies are not obliged by the ruling to change their own gender eligibility rules.

But since the judgement several sporting governing bodies have changed their individual policies to fall in line, while others are embarking on independent reviews of their current policies.

The Football Association (FA), Scottish Football Association (SFA), England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and England Netball have all banned transgender women from competing in the female category in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

How sports have reacted to Supreme Court’s transgender women ruling | The Independent

Transgender women will no longer be able to play in women's football in England from 1 June, the Football Association has announced.

It amended its rules on 11 April, applying stricter eligibility criteria for transgender women to continue playing in women's football at all levels.

However, following the UK Supreme Court's ruling on 16 April that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex, the FA has scrapped that policy and says only those born biologically female will be permitted to play.

FA says transgender women cannot compete in women'''s football from 1 June - BBC Sport

When does Trump's executive order turn into facts on the ground?

Transgender swimmer Ana Caldas wins 5 races at national championship event


Transgender swimmer Ana Caldas wins 5 races at national championship event: ‘Real-life South Park episode’

May 2, 2025

A transgender swimmer obliterated the competition while winning five races at a recent national championship meet — which a high-profile critic likened to a “real-life South Park episode.”

Ana Caldas dominated the five individual events she entered in the women’s 45-49 age group division in the U.S. Masters Swimming Spring National Championship last weekend in San Antonio, Texas.

The swimmer — who was born biologically male — smashed other competitors in the 50- and 100-yard breaststroke races by a whopping four seconds.

In the 100-yard freestyle event, she finished three seconds ahead of the next swimmer.

Footage circulating on social media showed Caldas far ahead of the women in her category as she easily secured one of her many gold medals — quickly sparking outrage.

“He won them all,” collegiate swimming champion and women’s rights activist Riley Gaines tweeted, refusing to use Caldas’ preferred pronouns.

Another activist, Beth Bourne, ripped Caldas’ medal tally as “insanity.”

“Anyone who competes in swimming at the national level knows this is unheard of in a 50-yard race where wins are often measured in a tenth or a hundredth of a second,” Bourne said in an X post.

Meanwhile, an Independent Council on Women’s Sports spokesperson told Reduxx that Caldas’ wins were “absolutely insane” — especially for sprint races.

“He’s just laughing at these women,” the rep said.


Caldas (above).

I like breaststroke as much as the next metrosexual but prefer the cocksless pairs.

IMHO opinion Nev don't post yer own pic in Leo -tard makes the tubbier teachas jealous

Originally Posted by Neverna

Ana Caldas dominated the five individual events she entered in the women’s 45-49 age group

Originally Posted by Neverna

she finished three seconds ahead of the next swimmer

This is why Harry's argument that 'there are only tiny numbers of these people' does not really carry water as an exculpation.

It only takes one of these punters to ruin an entire sporting event across multiple categories for the ladies, due to the gulf in athletic performance between biological males and females.

Originally Posted by Looper

This is why Harry's argument that 'there are only tiny numbers of these people' does not really carry water as an exculpation

So where exactly is the line to decide what.is a woman and what is not ? Having a vagina at birth ? Which would of course include hemaphrodites .

Another option would be to only have sports , with no men and woman's categories

Originally Posted by baldrick

So where exactly is the line to decide what.is a woman and what is not ? Having a vagina at birth ? Which would of course include hemaphrodites .

Another option would be to only have sports , with no men and woman's categories

3 sporting categories.

Born male.
Born female.
Born hemaphrodite. [sic]


Unless in national sporting trials in a country where them hemaphrodites be all sacrificed and shiz.

Originally Posted by Looper

It only takes one

Perfect example of why you have zero credibility.
You’ve been droning all about this pointless topic, across multiple threads, for weeks. (Never mind, the fact that only 0.001% of Olympic athletes identify as trans)
“It only takes one “? But when it comes to Trump’s Nazi dragnet, you’re perfectly fine with the fact that innocent people are being arrested, and without due process, illegally deported to a foreign prison.

MAGA stooge

Originally Posted by Molle

Yes for shoe and clothing sizes.

And for contraceptives.

Originally Posted by baldrick

So where exactly is the line to decide what.is a woman and what is not ?

Probably above my pay grade but I would suggest presence/absence of a Y chromosome might be a reasonable start. I think the executive order went with dimensions of the gametes/sex cells (large sex cells denoting a female).