What is a woman?

[monkers]

Women will fight on to keep their single sex spaces regardless.

You haven't learnt have you. This is how men on the far right recruit and control you. Now we have the likes of Farage wanting to start arguing about abortion in parliament, chipping away at women's rights. FFS. This is all part of the recruitment process for the next GE. What has worked in the USA can work here. You were warned before, but you've learnt nothing.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...2EfgY_OBjUVTS8-ocU_aem_wYCXpRV5l9txKigstFqRjw

 

[cookiemonster]

Christ on a Cannondale.

Here we go again.

Isn't there a thread already for this? 1000+ pages long.

 

[monkers]

Christ on a Cannondale.

Here we go again.

Isn't there a thread already for this? 1000+ pages long.

Even Women's Place UK can't be bothered any more and have folded.

 

[AuroraSaab]

WPUK have done what they set out to do, which was bring the issues to wider attention. I thought you'd like them as they've platformed trans identifying men in the past.

Most of the women in the UK who are grass roots campaigners are left wing, many are lesbians (actual lesbians, not men who say they are lesbians), so your insistence that protecting women's single sex spaces and services is a right wing endeavour is, as usual, disingenuous nonsense.

'Let men in your spaces or you can't have abortion' is emotive forced teaming in the fashion of the abusive partner who says 'Stick with me ...he'll treat you worse'. It's not a persuasive argument but it's probably all you've got left.

Also, that Guardian article .... it's irrelevant. We have never had abortion on demand in the UK. I'm amazed that woman didn't know that.

 

[monkers]

Christ on a Cannondale.

I am eager to assist your claim. I had always believed that Christ was on a Trek.

Firstly can you please confirm or deny if it was fitted with rim brakes? Was he wearing a hi vis clothing and a helmet? Camera footage, if available or a witness statement would greatly assist you claim.

PS ... please ask him which lube he recommends.

 

[spen666]

When is the court expected to hand down its judgement?

 

[AndyRM]

I am eager to assist your claim. I had always believed that Christ was on a Trek.

Firstly can you please confirm or deny if it was fitted with rim brakes? Was he wearing a hi vis clothing and a helmet? Camera footage, if available or a witness statement would greatly assist you claim.

PS ... please ask him which lube he recommends.

Jesus is more of a hotrod kinda guy.

Here is a link, for the oft requested evidence of these kinda things...


View: https://youtu.be/GXCh9OhDiCI?si=NCAfV6rmlfzG_BRo

 

[Rusty Nails]

I am eager to assist your claim. I had always believed that Christ was on a Trek.

Firstly can you please confirm or deny if it was fitted with rim brakes? Was he wearing a hi vis clothing and a helmet? Camera footage, if available or a witness statement would greatly assist you claim.

PS ... please ask him which lube he recommends.

I think you are mistaken.

I have it on good authority that the last time he was seen he was on one of these:

 

[monkers]

I think you are mistaken.

I have it on good authority that the last time he was seen he was on one of these:

View attachment 6931

Ugh. I think you nailed it.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Ugh. I think you nailed it.

I don't hang around.

 

[monkers]

I don't hang around.

Not so rusty after all.

 

["slow horse" aka "another sam"]

It's good that "trans women are women" came up, as it's foundational. They aren't, of course.

Yes they are. Also trans men are men and non-binary identities are valid.

Awaiting evidence for that extraordinary claim. Bolding the text doesn't magically make it more valid. Are seahorses horses, while we're at it? (Actually, given the interesting reproductive strategy of the seahorse, I'm surprised they didn't make more of a splash in the last gender thread. Look, here's another one.)

Very little of what you post is worth responding to, but you do have your moments.

Trump and his new bitch

Sometimes you have to be prepared to take just a little bit of rough

Enlightening in its own way.

BTW ... I'm not on X, why would I be?

For those others also not on X, note that the video in the embedded tweet in my post #39 can be watched without debasing yourself by going to Elon's site. It's short and to the point.

As for the lawyer on YouTube, I kept expecting him to break out in Jonathan Pie mode. The shameshilling for his channel near the beginning is thankfully brief. Trigger warning: facts.

Christ on a Cannondale.

The Good Book:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Christ-Bike-D-J-Doyle-ebook/dp/B076X6P95C
I haven't read it, so have no idea if it actually is.

When is the court expected to hand down its judgement?

I gave a guesstimate in my reply #10, along with a link to what I thought might be catnip for a lawyer.

From his article 'The document that reveals the remarkable tactics of trans lobbyists' (archived here):
The document is the work of Dentons, which says it is the world’s biggest law firm

 

[monkers]

Awaiting evidence for that extraordinary claim. Bolding the text doesn't magically make it more valid. Are seahorses horses, while we're at it? (Actually, given the interesting reproductive strategy of the seahorse, I'm surprised they didn't make more of a splash in the last gender thread. Look, here's another one.)

Very little of what you post is worth responding to, but you do have your moments.

The thinking is unhinged if you think that the etymology of the word 'seahorse' makes the case that when parliament clearly set out the law in 2004 with the legal phrase ''for all purposes'' they meant something else.

You might remember that in previous centuries in the UK we did not have the word ''boys''. Children were either 'knave girls' or 'gay girls'.
Boys were dressed in pink, and girls in blue even beyond Victorian times.

The thinking is also unhinged if you believe that when parliament used the phrase 'for all purposes' that they could have six years later meant the opposite when they passed the equality act to prevent discrimination. There is a reason that the GRA2004 survived, unlike the SDA and DDA which were repealed. It is because the GRA is a deeming act that needed to be retained to ensure proper protection from discrimination.

Your purpose is to undo established law because you actively wish and campaign for the right to discriminate against people. To then say this is not transphobic is laughable. It's up there with the bullshit 'I'm not racist but ...''. We all know what that means.

Edit: amended because I goofed at one point due to it being early and I was interrupted.

 

[monkers]

As for the lawyer on YouTube, I kept expecting him to break out in Jonathan Pie mode. The shameshilling for his channel near the beginning is thankfully brief. Trigger warning: facts.

OK I've just taken the trouble to watch BBB, and just as I suspected and as I said he presented bigotry, and not as he claimed an opinion on the law.

To use the argument that trans women have a right to a bed on a maternity ward is frankly farking ridiculous, and the idea that a person is giving a neutral legal opinion is moronic.

Nobody believes that a trans woman with a GRC has the reproductive sex of a biological female; therefore they can not be pregnant or delivering a baby. Only an idiot would think that they are going to turn up to a hospital feeling entitled and demanding to be admitted to a maternity ward.

He is not arguing the legal points at all; he is arguing for bigotry.

The legal point is that trans women are women for all purposes up to the point that the law permits disapplication. The legal point is not that just anyone can turn up to a hospital and be placed in the maternity ward at will. Frankly I'm embarrassed for you if you are taken in by him.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Frankly I'm embarrassed for you if you are taken in by him.

I used to watch some of his youtube stuff but I stopped when I came across his twitter account and noticed he retweets bigoted and racist nonsense from Reform and that twat Darren Grimes.