|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jun 9, 2024 11:27:49 GMT
Shows that women can have a penis. It shows that there are rare cases of sexual abnormalities. It doesn’t show that Dave with a six inch cock can put in a frock , call himself Daisy and be entitled to be defined as a woman . But the question was about Ed Davey's statement that some women can have a penis. That's therefore true. Of courses a man wearing a dress is still a man. The clothes you wear does not define your gender. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 9, 2024 11:31:54 GMT
It shows that there are rare cases of sexual abnormalities. It doesn’t show that Dave with a six inch cock can put in a frock , call himself Daisy and be entitled to be defined as a woman . But the question was about Ed Davey's statement that some women can have a penis. That's therefore true. Of courses a man wearing a dress is still a man. The clothes you wear does not define your gender. You must need glasses . The post referred to men who are not biological freaks having the right to be defined as women ie identifying as women . |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 9, 2024 11:57:17 GMT
But the question was about Ed Davey's statement that some women can have a penis... No it wasn't, you pulled that out of your arse. What is describing is a genetic malfunction whereby a person may exhibit primary sexual characteristics of both sexes, of the opposite sex or of neither. That's a genuine and rare medical condition and not the same thing as transgenderism, however disingenuously you attempt to conflate the two. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 9, 2024 11:57:40 GMT
Leftie logic .
Progeria (pro-JEER-e-uh), also known as Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome, is an extremely rare, progressive genetic disorder. It causes children to age rapidly, starting in their first two years of life
Therefore three year olds can identify as old people and claim a pension .
Yes they are as stupid as that l..
|
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jun 9, 2024 12:12:01 GMT
But the question was about Ed Davey's statement that some women can have a penis... No it wasn't, you pulled that out of your arse. What is describing is a genetic malfunction whereby a person may exhibit primary sexual characteristics of both sexes, of the opposite sex or of neither. That's a genuine and rare medical condition and not the same thing as transgenderism, however disingenuously you attempt to conflate the two. Ed Davey is incorrect and an attempt to make himself trendy True hermaphrodites are not a very vocal tiny minority demanding to dress up as women , use women's bathrooms ,be treated in female wards in hospitals or have their typically male crimes recorded as female crimes True hermaphroditism is a very rare form of intersex anomaly where both male and female gonads are present. True hermaphrodites diagnosed in the past have been preferentially reared as males. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3236177/#:~:text=Abstract,been%20preferentially%20reared%20as%20males. True hermaphroditism is very rare except in Southern Africa, where it is the most common intersex condition.www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/true-hermaphroditism#:~:text=True%20hermaphroditism%20is%20defined%20by,the%20most%20common%20intersex%20condition. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2024 15:45:19 GMT
Shows that women can have a penis. Only in la la land. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jun 9, 2024 16:09:08 GMT
Shows that women can have a penis. Only in la la land. If they buy a strap on one in an Ann Summers shop |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 9, 2024 17:52:05 GMT
Shows that women can have a penis. It shows that there are rare cases of sexual abnormalities. It doesn’t show that Dave with a six inch cock can put in a frock , call himself Daisy and be entitled to be defined as a woman . It, and many other recognised imperfection shows that human procreation is far from perfect. But doesn't show just how far the imperfections either reach or to what levels they reach. So your "rare cases of sexual abnormalities" makes sense if you post 'recognizable physical abnormalities', otherwise it is just guesswork on your part. That is not to say that there are no idiots out there, or that there are no trouble makers out there. All of whom need to be dealt with. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 9, 2024 17:55:21 GMT
It shows that there are rare cases of sexual abnormalities. It doesn’t show that Dave with a six inch cock can put in a frock , call himself Daisy and be entitled to be defined as a woman . It, and many other recognised imperfection shows that human procreation is far from perfect. But doesn't show just how far the imperfections either reach or to what levels they reach. So your "rare cases of sexual abnormalities" makes sense if you post 'recognizable physical abnormalities', otherwise it is just guesswork on your part. That is not to say that there are no idiots out there, or that there are no trouble makers out there. All of whom need to be dealt with. You are describing biology - we are talking about gender.. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 9, 2024 17:57:59 GMT
But the question was about Ed Davey's statement that some women can have a penis... No it wasn't, you pulled that out of your arse. What is describing is a genetic malfunction whereby a person may exhibit primary sexual characteristics of both sexes, of the opposite sex or of neither. That's a genuine and rare medical condition and not the same thing as transgenderism, however disingenuously you attempt to conflate the two. What it is describing, along with other mixed sex messages is that human procreation is far from perfect. Stop pretending you know everything about the mixing of the sexes in Humans. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 9, 2024 17:57:59 GMT
It shows that there are rare cases of sexual abnormalities. It doesn’t show that Dave with a six inch cock can put in a frock , call himself Daisy and be entitled to be defined as a woman . It, and many other recognised imperfection shows that human procreation is far from perfect. But doesn't show just how far the imperfections either reach or to what levels they reach. So your "rare cases of sexual abnormalities" makes sense if you post 'recognizable physical abnormalities', otherwise it is just guesswork on your part. That is not to say that there are no idiots out there, or that there are no trouble makers out there. All of whom need to be dealt with. When is it going to sink into your little head that the problem is not with’ physical abnormalities’ . The problem is with the demand that a biological male must be defined as a female if they identify as one. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 9, 2024 18:02:42 GMT
It, and many other recognised imperfection shows that human procreation is far from perfect. But doesn't show just how far the imperfections either reach or to what levels they reach. So your "rare cases of sexual abnormalities" makes sense if you post 'recognizable physical abnormalities', otherwise it is just guesswork on your part. That is not to say that there are no idiots out there, or that there are no trouble makers out there. All of whom need to be dealt with. You are describing biology - we are talking about gender. Gender is all part of the problem. If your physical male self is is interfered with by female inclusion in your physical make up, then describing ones gender becomes a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 9, 2024 18:03:54 GMT
It, and many other recognised imperfection shows that human procreation is far from perfect. But doesn't show just how far the imperfections either reach or to what levels they reach. So your "rare cases of sexual abnormalities" makes sense if you post 'recognizable physical abnormalities', otherwise it is just guesswork on your part. That is not to say that there are no idiots out there, or that there are no trouble makers out there. All of whom need to be dealt with. When is it going to sink into your little head that the problem is not with’ physical abnormalities’ . The problem is with the demand that a biological male must be defined as a female if they identify as one. Don't be silly, I have never advocated such nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 9, 2024 18:04:14 GMT
You are describing biology - we are talking about gender. Gender is all part of the problem. If your physical male self is is interfered with by female inclusion in your physical make up, then describing ones gender becomes a problem. Then you describe it as it is . Then it becomes true . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 9, 2024 18:05:22 GMT
When is it going to sink into your little head that the problem is not with’ physical abnormalities’ . The problem is with the demand that a biological male must be defined as a female if they identify as one. Don't be silly, I have never advocated such nonsense. So you agree that a biological male cannot be defined as a woman ? |
|
