• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Legal definition of woman is based on biological sex, UK supreme court rules

It is evasive and rude to reply to questions.
I see no reason to answer your questions shen you refuse to answer mine.
 
Because previously you seem to be invested in “complete physical transformation”, but now your emphasis is “psychological transformation”.

These would appear to be different things.
 
What criteria should apply to the question of who should participate in women’s sports?

Is a man who has made the “psychological transformation” to being a woman eligible to compete against women?
 
So neither a “psychological transformation” nor a “complete physical transformation” are important, because neither makes a man a woman.

Good.

We agree.

Good to find some unity.
 
It is evasive and rude to reply to questions.
I see no reason to answer your questions shen you refuse to answer mine.
Grow up.
Why are you afraid to answer questions?
He is not. He does it a lot.

What he, and Emily and I and some others, often get back is the kind of meaningless sarcasm and evasion that you regularly post.
Tom
Sarcasm is never meaningless.
 
It is evasive and rude to reply to questions.
I see no reason to answer your questions shen you refuse to answer mine.
Grow up.
Why are you afraid to answer questions?
He is not. He does it a lot.

What he, and Emily and I and some others, often get back is the kind of meaningless sarcasm and evasion that you regularly post.
Tom
Sarcasm is never meaningless.
How sarcastic of you to respond that way.
Tom
 
So neither a “psychological transformation” nor a “complete physical transformation” are important, because neither makes a man a woman.

Good.

We agree.

Good to find some unity.
Nope. Saying A is not more important than B does not reject the importance of either A or B.
 
It is evasive and rude to reply to questions.
I see no reason to answer your questions shen you refuse to answer mine.
Grow up.
Why are you afraid to answer questions?
He is not. He does it a lot.

What he, and Emily and I and some others, often get back is the kind of meaningless sarcasm and evasion that you regularly post.
Tom
Sarcasm is never meaningless.
How sarcastic of you to respond that way.
Tom
That was not sarcasm.
 
It is evasive and rude to reply to questions.
I see no reason to answer your questions shen you refuse to answer mine.
Grow up.
Why are you afraid to answer questions?
He is not. He does it a lot.

What he, and Emily and I and some others, often get back is the kind of meaningless sarcasm and evasion that you regularly post.
Tom
Sarcasm is never meaningless.
How sarcastic of you to respond that way.
Tom
That was not sarcasm.
How evasive.
Don't worry, I don't care about your opinions on the subject.
Tom
 
So you’re saying the distinction is meaningless when it comes to the operation of single sex spaces.

That any man who says they consider themselves a woman should be allowed to enter any space reserved for females.

You’re quite the misogynist.
 
What criteria should apply to the question of who should participate in women’s sports?

Is a man who has made the “psychological transformation” to being a woman eligible to compete against women?
 
So you’re saying the distinction is meaningless when it comes to the operation of single sex spaces.
Said no such thing,

seanie said:
That any man who says they consider themselves a woman should be allowed to enter any space reserved for females.

You’re quite the misogynist.
Ouch!!’Coming from someone who obsesses about the sex of trees, that really hurts.
 
Last edited:
  • Mind Blown
Reactions: WAB
So then explain, as a matter of policy and law, how are single sex spaces and services to be operated?

Are any males allowed to access female only spaces? Or only some?

What criteria would you suggest applying?
 
Back
Top Bottom