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

[laughing dog]

It is evasive and rude to reply to questions.
I see no reason to answer your questions shen you refuse to answer mine.

 

[seanie]

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.

 

[seanie]

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.

 

[laughing dog]

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?

 

[laughing dog]

Because previously you seem to be invested in “complete physical transformation”, but now your emphasis is “psychological transformation”.

Wrong.

These would appear to be different things.

Duh.

 

[seanie]

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?

 

[seanie]

Because previously you seem to be invested in “complete physical transformation”, but now your emphasis is “psychological transformation”.

Wrong.

These would appear to be different things.

Duh.

So which is more important, when?

 

[TomC]

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

 

[laughing dog]

Because previously you seem to be invested in “complete physical transformation”, but now your emphasis is “psychological transformation”.

Wrong.

These would appear to be different things.

Duh.

So which is more important, when?

Neither.

 

[seanie]

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.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

 

[TomC]

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

 

[laughing dog]

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.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

 

[TomC]

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

 

[seanie]

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.

 

[laughing dog]

Don't worry, I don't care about your opinions on the subject.
Tom

Bless your heart. I’m not worried at all.

It is hard to care about something you appear incapable of understanding.

 

[seanie]

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?

 

[laughing dog]

So you’re saying the distinction is meaningless when it comes to the operation of single sex spaces.

Said no such thing,

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.

 

[seanie]

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?