Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

Well that doesn't seem to be working 100%.
Perhaps if you engaged in discussion rather than resorting your usual pompous replies things would move on better.
If you insist on presenting nonsense like

I doubt there's any common ground. But add in the pomposity and I can't even say I respect your opinion.

Why don't you tell us all what the ''biological sex'' of women is then Bob? I'm all ears.

 

[CXRAndy]

You know full well, there are two sexes in mammals, male and female

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Why don't you tell us all what the ''biological sex'' of women is then Bob? I'm all ears.

Well we could resort to your beloved AI.

In UK law, under the Equality Act 2010, "woman" is legally defined as someone who was assigned female at birth. This definition is based on biological sex, not gender identity. The UK Supreme Court has ruled that this definition applies to all areas of the Equality Act, including single-sex spaces and services.

Or perhaps

The word "woman" can refer to both biological sex and gender identity, but with slightly different nuances. While "woman" can be used to describe a person assigned female at birth, it can also be used to describe a person who identifies as a woman, regardless of their sex assigned at birth.

But I guess you'll want to come up with some contrived gotcha, bring it on.

 

[monkers]

You know full well, there are two sexes in mammals, male and female

As Aurora has said, there are two reproductive pathways. That does not mean that all humans can reproduce, should reproduce, want to reproduce. If they don't they still are humans with unique biology (identical twins etc excluded).

Reproductive biology is binary and immutable, other human biology is not, it is variable. Saying that ''biological sex'' covers all variations is not even GCSE level biology, it's for 8 year olds and adult simpletons.

There are enough men who think that women exist to satisfy their sexual needs, and who would be horrified if they had to stump up the eighteen year costs if the women they had sex with reproduced. Listen to the brothers Tate. Listen to the language they use. They are not interested in womanhood. Men and women in nightclubs out on the pull for a one night stand, are not looking to explore their reproductive pathways, they have other drivers and needs..

We are all unique in our bodies and in our minds.

Beyond this, how should women be treated in society? Just with regard to their reproductive biology? Nothing else? Just treat them as being useful as 'females'? And the women who can't reproduce, how will you treat them?

So here I am, a woman, a woman who will resist men treating me with the potential of being a lump of meat for their purposes. I am not merely female, I am a woman with all that entails. Additionally I will set my own path as a woman. I don't need some funkwit male to tell me ''what a woman is'' or to tell me how to look like a woman or behave like a woman. I do not try to make myself close to the ideals of men for their purposes. fark that.

I assume I once had a reproductive sex. I know I no longer do. I didn't want any man to take any interest in it. I don't exist to be any man's plaything. I don't care if they don't like my appearance. I don't exist to be men's fiddle fantasies.

I want young women to be free independently minded women, not tied to Victorian values of merely being female for the entertainment of men.

What is is that you want for your daughters? Just baby makers so that you get to be called ''grandad''? Sincerely for their sakes I hope not.

 

[monkers]

Well we could resort to your beloved AI.

In UK law, under the Equality Act 2010, "woman" is legally defined as someone who was assigned female at birth. This definition is based on biological sex, not gender identity. The UK Supreme Court has ruled that this definition applies to all areas of the Equality Act, including single-sex spaces and services.

Or perhaps

The word "woman" can refer to both biological sex and gender identity, but with slightly different nuances. While "woman" can be used to describe a person assigned female at birth, it can also be used to describe a person who identifies as a woman, regardless of their sex assigned at birth.

But I guess you'll want to come up with some contrived gotcha, bring it on.

Read my reply to shithead.

 

[CXRAndy]

That does not mean that all humans can reproduce

It doesn't matter whether or not a mammal can or cannot produce. They are still male or female

 

[CXRAndy]

As Aurora has said, there are two reproductive pathways. That does not mean that all humans can reproduce, should reproduce, want to reproduce. If they don't they still are humans with unique biology (identical twins etc excluded).

Reproductive biology is binary and immutable, other human biology is not, it is variable. Saying that ''biological sex'' covers all variations is not even GCSE level biology, it's for 8 year olds and adult simpletons.

There are enough men who think that women exist to satisfy their sexual needs, and who would be horrified if they had to stump up the eighteen year costs if the women they had sex with reproduced. Listen to the brothers Tate. Listen to the language they use. They are not interested in womanhood. Men and women in nightclubs out on the pull for a one night stand, are not looking to explore their reproductive pathways, they have other drivers and needs..

We are all unique in our bodies and in our minds.

Beyond this, how should women be treated in society? Just with regard to their reproductive biology? Nothing else? Just treat them as being useful as 'females'? And the women who can't reproduce, how will you treat them?

So here I am, a woman, a woman who will resist men treating me with the potential of being a lump of meat for their purposes. I am not merely female, I am a woman with all that entails. Additionally I will set my own path as a woman. I don't need some funkwit male to tell me ''what a woman is'' or to tell me how to look like a woman or behave like a woman. I do not try to make myself close to the ideals of men for their purposes. fark that.

I assume once had a reproductive sex. I know I no longer do. I didn't want any man to take any interest in it. I don't exist to be any man's plaything. I don't care if they don't like my appearance. I don't exist to be men's fiddle fantasies.

I want young women to be free independently minded women, not tied to Victorian values of merely being female for the entertainment of men.

What is is that you want for your daughters? Just baby makers so that you get to be called ''grandad''? Sincerely for their sakes I hope not.

Off your rocker

 

[monkers]

It doesn't matter whether or not a mammal can or cannot produce. They are still male or female

Thank you. I've told you why it doesn't matter in your interactions with people what reproductive sex they are. What matters is the respect you have for them as a person regardless of that. If they present as a woman, treat them like a woman. If they present as a man, treat them like a man. If you are too simple to understand people with difference, just mind your own business and leave them alone.

 

[monkers]

Off your rocker

Nope. I'm a woman telling you who this woman is. And that Andy is misogyny - you telling a woman what maketh a woman. Frankly you have no clue.

 

[monkers]

Yes. I see you Mickle. I've seen how you are so inadequate in critical thinking, now I see you inadequate as a man. A real man knows what a woman is, because real men know how to think about a woman.

 

[monkers]

So now Aurora you can see. These men here whose support you've been enjoying, just think of women as a collection of body parts. They are not interested in the content of your mind - but then to think of it, neither am I much interested in the content of your mind. I'd rather be friends with a woman than a person who is merely female.

 

[CXRAndy]

Nope. I'm a woman telling you who this woman is. And that Andy is misogyny - you telling a woman what maketh a woman. Frankly you have no clue.

You believe a man with a piece of paper is a woman.

No one in their right mind believes this.

You have been well and truly captured by an ideology. Legal spaghetti has been written for people like you to force for well reasoned people to accept this crazy situation.

After some 15 or so years , common sense is beginning to win the day.

Thousands of children across the world have mutilated at the altar of trans ideology. Men, generally odd behaving ones, have been enabled into thinking they can access women's safe spaces.

Thankfully it has been stopped

 

[monkers]

You believe a man with a piece of paper is a woman.

No one in their right mind believes this.

You have been well and truly captured by an ideology. Legal spaghetti has been written for people like you to force for well reasoned people to accept this crazy situation.

After some 15 or so years , common sense is beginning to win the day.

Thousands of children across the world have mutilated at the altar of trans ideology. Men, generally odd behaving ones, have been enabled into thinking they can access women's safe spaces.

Thankfully it has been stopped

Yes why not. If somebody born male tell me that despite this they know that they are wired as a woman, I don't have a problem with that.

What I believe is that every person is free to develop their own personality and free to exercise bodily autonomy. Even you.

Common sense is a universal. This is not the case here - opinions vary. If you haven't learnt that, that you aren't thinking. What am I saying, of course you aren't thinking.

BTW it hasn't been stopped, at least not yet. Trans people exist and will continue to exist.

The Supreme Court judgement will be tested in the European Court of Human Rights.

The interim guidance and the government's stance is being tested in the High Court.

 

[AuroraSaab]

So now Aurora you can see. These men here whose support you've been enjoying, just think of women as a collection of body parts.

It's the opposite. They understand that the basis of women's oppression is sex - ie their sexed body, not what they feel in their head.

This is why you are deliberately confusing differentiation for reduction. Saying men and women are different does not reduce us to those differences. It suits you to say it does in order to pretend that sex doesn't matter and therefore somehow men can be women. They can't.

 

[monkers]

It's the opposite. They understand that the basis of women's oppression is sex - ie their sexed body, not what they feel in their head.

This is why you are deliberately confusing differentiation for reduction. Saying men and women are different does not reduce us to those differences. It suits you to say it does in order to pretend that sex doesn't matter and therefore somehow men

You give them too much credit. They are older men who feel somewhat redundant because they don't get to have the same degree of control over women that they used to. They need to catch up.


View: https://youtu.be/LS37SNYjg8w