Gender again. Sorry!

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

monkers

Squire
This is the embarrassing level of histrionics that you reduce yourself to because you have so few arguments to offer.

It isn't histrionics. I'm perfectly calm. This bollocks reminds of when men try to shut women down by calling them ''shrill''.

If there are histrionics they come from you, with your grand statements, faux self-appointment as spokeswoman for women.

What I do notice from you consistently are all forms of cognitive bias. You scrape the internet for any scrap that supports you paranoia-fuelled ideology, and demand that all women become as neurotic as you sound. You cherry-pick views from sources known for their bias, and reject the view of specialists labelling them ''trans activists'' be they individuals such as Lady Hale's daughter to the BMA. You've tried these tactics with me.

I've never seen you act as a good faith actor, an honest or broker, an objective, reasonable or critical thinker.

Instead we get foot stamping insistence that your opinion is the only correct and valid one.

I reject your standing as any kind of expert. I reject your claims to an authoritative voice. I reject your analyses. I reject your obvious prejudice. I reject you claim to moral standing. I reject your opinions as having value or merit.
 

monkers

Squire
Except it didn't happen like that did it. Post a link to scientific research* that says there's no such thing as biological sex and I'll have to admit I'm wrong.
*Peer reviewed science please, no Canadian surveys of 'grey' literature allowed.


Oh you sound like the goons who turn up here demanding that I prove I haven't bought a television. I always ask them to recommend a shop where I can go to get a receipt to say that I didn't buy a television as that will save me time from visiting every television shop.
 

monkers

Squire
Except it didn't happen like that did it. Post a link to scientific research* that says there's no such thing as biological sex and I'll have to admit I'm wrong.
*Peer reviewed science please, no Canadian surveys of 'grey' literature allowed.


I guess I should give you a less snarky answer to above. Bob, I didn't say ''there's no such thing as biological sex''. Therefore I don't need to prove it.

I've said two things - that there is no legal definition of biological sex. But if you know that I'm wrong, then educate me.

I've also said this ...
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.
The link provided by Classic proves that even reproductive sex is not a strict binary, as we know there are many variations.

A few men have little facial hair growth. A few women have a problem because they do. Those are variations in biology that demonstrate that there are some variations.

Other than that, the biology is subject to averages. The average height of a man is greater than the average height of a woman.

The model Jodie Kidd is 1.86m tall meaning that only about 5% or so of men are taller than her. So that's a biological variation within a person of a certain sex, and not due to biological sex.

What makes males and females differ is that typically their reproductive pathways are different because of their gametes, and typically they can then reproduce. But we know that there are many underlying reasons that couples are unable to reproduce. That doesn't mean they don't have a biological sex, but one of them at least is atypical. It follows that if reproductive sex is not always typical then neither can biological sex be said to be. Therefore biological sex can not be said to be a strict binary, which is not the same as saying ''there is no such thing as biological sex''.
 

CXRAndy

Guru
Non of that matters now, women have been protected with the supreme court. They will begin to take legal action against all those woke organisations that are dragging their feet over protecting women's spaces
 

monkers

Squire
Non of that matters now, women have been protected with the supreme court. They will begin to take legal action against all those woke organisations that are dragging their feet over protecting women's spaces

It is fortunate that in this instance you don't know what you are flapping your gums about.
 
There are only 2 sexes because there are only 2 reproductive pathways and 2 gametes. That some people cannot reproduce does not undermine that fact. Humans are bipeds; people being born with only one leg don't undermine the fact that humans are a bipedal species.

'Some women are tall/hairy/can't reproduce.... therefore you must allow men in women's spaces' .... these are nonsense arguments.
 

CXRAndy

Guru
It is fortunate that in this instance you don't know what you are flapping your gums about.

It seems a patriarchal thicko knows more than you when it's comes to women's rights.

The mumbo jumbo you spout to contort your argument to fit that men should be allowed into women's areas is hilarious.

I can only presume it's the drugs you've been taking, that allows common sense, reality float away

1000022349.gif
 

CXRAndy

Guru
 

monkers

Squire
Nurse sues RCN for breaching her rights. That will help you 😁

If this is the Sandie Peggie case, she has a chance as the doctor did not have a GRC at the time. The nurse is also in trouble herself, likely she will lose her job for not putting patients first.
 
Top Bottom