|
|
Post by buccaneer on Jan 27, 2024 5:20:29 GMT
Yes you did. It's there in the written word, I quoted you. Nothing to do with religious beliefs either, more biological science. No I did not, you need to read it again, but next time do it without jumping to conclusions. More a skim over biological science where you take your knowledge as far as you want it to go. FORBES: --"Many who oppose transgender rights believe that gender is determined solely by biological sex. But, biological sex isn’t as straightforward as they likely think, and there is no one parameter that makes a person biologically male or female. In fact, many conditions make assigning a biological sex quite difficult."-- Are you that desperate to defend Starmer that you now can't define what a woman is? Here's a little help, it's called a dictionary: dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 27, 2024 7:59:27 GMT
I know that those in the Labour Party have some very odd ideas (like you can grow a cervix) - but unfortunately for you biology trumps wishful thinking. Stubborn fixed opinions ends learning. What makes you think that there are no one in other political parties that don't even have experiences of biological problems in this area? can you grow a cervix? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 27, 2024 8:48:03 GMT
No I did not, you need to read it again, but next time do it without jumping to conclusions. More a skim over biological science where you take your knowledge as far as you want it to go. FORBES: --"Many who oppose transgender rights believe that gender is determined solely by biological sex. But, biological sex isn’t as straightforward as they likely think, and there is no one parameter that makes a person biologically male or female. In fact, many conditions make assigning a biological sex quite difficult."-- Are you that desperate to defend Starmer that you now can't define what a woman is? Here's a little help, it's called a dictionary: dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/womanI will ignore your arrogant, ignorant and misguided opening comment, and put it down to your absolute emotional need to appear to be right on this. If there is something on your posted website that absolutely proves that there is no mixing of the sexes and that nature only does perfection, please copy and paste. The site insists on some cookies and I already have enough interference from other websites that insisted on using cookies. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 27, 2024 8:56:15 GMT
Stubborn fixed opinions ends learning. What makes you think that there are no one in other political parties that don't even have experiences of biological problems in this area? can you grow a cervix? As you answered my post you should answer my question first. I personally cannot grow a 'cervix'. I would need to read, in context, that which leads you to ask the question "can you grow a cervix". |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Jan 27, 2024 8:56:56 GMT
I will ignore your arrogant, ignorant and misguided opening comment, and put it down to your absolute emotional need to appear to be right on this. If there is something on your posted website that absolutely proves that there is no mixing of the sexes and that nature only does perfection, please copy and paste. The site insists on some cookies and I already have enough interference from other websites that insisted on using cookies. I've already given you the dictionary definition. Oh, and I have no emotional need to appear to be right on this. I am right. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 27, 2024 9:16:39 GMT
I will ignore your arrogant, ignorant and misguided opening comment, and put it down to your absolute emotional need to appear to be right on this. If there is something on your posted website that absolutely proves that there is no mixing of the sexes and that nature only does perfection, please copy and paste. The site insists on some cookies and I already have enough interference from other websites that insisted on using cookies. I've already given you the dictionary definition. Oh, and I have no emotional need to appear to be right on this. I am right. Thank you. I have not seen the quoted dictionary definition. You fail to debate the problem, you just claim WITHOUT PROOF to be right. As you are unable to logically debate it, then it is arguably emotionally held. |
|
|
|
Post by Dubdrifter on Jan 27, 2024 9:29:46 GMT
About transgender people. he said "trans women are women, and that is not just my view - that is actually the law". He was only confirming what the law says Gender Recognition Act 2004 has the effect that some trans women (i.e. the very small number who hold a GRC – only a few thousand to date) are deemed for most legal purposes to be women, although exceptions apply. The Equality Act 2010 forbids discrimination (in various different contexts) on grounds of gender reassignment.. That shows the sorry state of UK Law today … run by foreigners following foreign imported WOKE-stupid Agendas. Just because the Law proves itself to be a stupid ass … doesn’t mean our political leaders should follow suit … down a Dark rabbit hole concocted by a U.S. Democrat Party that trawls the borders of lunacy every day …. ( even though it doesn’t believe in borders)🙄🤯 Calling a cock in a frock a “man” isn’t discrimination … it’s a verification of reality … the reality men dressed as women have recently gone into women’s private spaces in America and committed rape. That opportunity needs to be snuffed out completely. …. we need to deny delusional people, that see their sex as a mindset, the opportunity to take advantage of women in sports arenas, and women’s private spaces. Let them queue behind disabled people for their toilets, if they really can’t pee standing up anymore, and won’t use the men’s cubical? |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Jan 27, 2024 9:33:33 GMT
I've already given you the dictionary definition. Oh, and I have no emotional need to appear to be right on this. I am right. Thank you. I have not seen the quoted dictionary definition. You fail to debate the problem, you just claim WITHOUT PROOF to be right. As you are unable to logically debate it, then it is arguably emotionally held. I gave you the dictionary definition. It's no my problem that you don't want to open the link and read the proof. As for failing to debate a problem, there is no problem. Your endeavour to make it a "problem" is your issue not mine. |
|
|
|
Post by Dubdrifter on Jan 27, 2024 9:34:32 GMT
2020 ... and Biden sat out the pre-election months in his bunker, while Trump toured the country speaking to massive rallies ...and who was declared President !! Nice to hear you finally confirm the 2020 Election was rigged! 😂👏👏 |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 27, 2024 9:35:10 GMT
About transgender people. he said "trans women are women, and that is not just my view - that is actually the law". He was only confirming what the law says Gender Recognition Act 2004 has the effect that some trans women (i.e. the very small number who hold a GRC – only a few thousand to date) are deemed for most legal purposes to be women, although exceptions apply. The Equality Act 2010 forbids discrimination (in various different contexts) on grounds of gender reassignment.. That shows the sorry state of UK Law today … run by foreigners following foreign imported WOKE-stupid Agendas. Just because the Law proves itself to be a stupid ass … doesn’t mean our political leaders should follow suit … down a Dark rabbit hole concocted by a U.S. Democrat Party that trawls the borders of lunacy every day …. ( even though it doesn’t believe in borders)🙄🤯 Calling a cock in a frock a “man” isn’t discrimination … it’s a verification of reality … the reality men dressed as women have recently gone into women’s private spaces in America and committed rape. That opportunity needs to be snuffed out completely. …. we need to deny delusional people, that see their sex as a mindset, the opportunity to take advantage of women in sports arenas, and women’s private spaces. Let them queue behind disabled people for their toilets, if they really can’t pee standing up anymore, and won’t use the men’s cubical? Instead of rabbiting on and making no sense, why not research the grey areas of the mixing of the sexes? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 27, 2024 9:42:07 GMT
I have not seen the quoted dictionary definition. You fail to debate the problem, you just claim WITHOUT PROOF to be right. As you are unable to logically debate it, then it is arguably emotionally held. I gave you the dictionary definition. It's no my problem that you don't want to open the link and read the proof. If Starmer told you a cat was a dog would you believe that too? The reality of course is that the definition offered doesn't answer the questions I put to you. If it did you would have shown it in a flash. There is no proof of perfection in this area in nature. But there is plenty of evidence of sexual mix-ups that people are already aware of, yet some stubbornly insist that there are no further areas of mix ups and grey areas even though experts claim there are. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Jan 27, 2024 9:46:22 GMT
I gave you the dictionary definition. It's no my problem that you don't want to open the link and read the proof. If Starmer told you a cat was a dog would you believe that too? The reality of course is that the definition offered doesn't answer the questions I put to you. If it did you would have shown it in a flash. There is no proof of perfection in this area in nature. But there is plenty of evidence of sexual mix-ups that people are already aware of, yet some stubbornly insist that there are no further areas of mix ups and grey areas even though experts claim there are. The only definition I was discussing was the fact that Starmer, and now you don't know what a woman is. It seems you are talking about chromosomal abnormalities. This doesn't change the definition of what a man and a woman is though. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 27, 2024 9:47:20 GMT
2020 ... and Biden sat out the pre-election months in his bunker, while Trump toured the country speaking to massive rallies ...and who was declared President !! Nice to hear you finally confirm the 2020 Election was rigged! 😂👏👏 You get the recognition for joke of the week ^^^  |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 27, 2024 10:08:06 GMT
The reality of course is that the definition offered doesn't answer the questions I put to you. If it did you would have shown it in a flash. There is no proof of perfection in this area in nature. But there is plenty of evidence of sexual mix-ups that people are already aware of, yet some stubbornly insist that there are no further areas of mix ups and grey areas even though experts claim there are. The only definition I was discussing was the fact that Starmer, and now you don't know what a woman is. It seems you are talking about chromosomal abnormalities. This doesn't change the definition of what a man and a woman is though. Sorry. Your first comment is a lie. "chromosomal abnormalities" create variations from what might be referred to as the norm, for the individual caught up in those variations, where they are is the norm for them. That most males behave in a way expected from males and are accepted as males, is not in dispute. But even then there is visible mixing of the sexes, an example can be seen in the bone structure of some men and some women, which doesn't make them gay. Example: Men with narrow shoulders and wide, baby carrying like, hips. And females with wide load bearing shoulders and slim male like hips. I have seen some examples of the above, and I have seen both inside two different families. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 27, 2024 11:40:11 GMT
As you answered my post you should answer my question first. I personally cannot grow a 'cervix'. I would need to read, in context, that which leads you to ask the question "can you grow a cervix". Under what context could you grow a cervix? |
|
