British Politics

No that is not what I implied. The toilets could be currently empty with no women yet present to judge. What mechanism do you have for granting or denying access?

Only people like you can envisage people going through the harrowing steps necessary to transition just to retire a few years earlier or for slightly cheaper car insurance.

LOL Luciom

Your whole political outlook is warped by the terrible view of human beings that you have, most of it being projection.

UHH???? the claim is self-identification ALONE IS ENOUGH.

That's the trans activist claim! that the ONLY way to determine if someone is trans or not is THEIR IDENTIFICATION. No transition needed.

That's a start if you agree it's obscene, incredibly ridicolous, insane to think that self-identification alone can be enough to guarantee sex-related privileges under the law.

When they say "trans women are women" they specifically and transparently mean ANYONE WHO SELF IDENTIFIES A WOMAN SHOULD GET TREATED LEGALLY AS WOMEN ARE.

You didn't know this? how have you been able to talk about this topic for years without knowing this?

I don't believe you can just ring the DWP and say "Hey, here's my NI number, I was a man but now I'm a woman, please start my pension payments, ok thx" so I have nfi what you're blathering on about.

You can't NOW, but you COULD if trans activists demand were made into the law, do you understand that is what we fight against with full force because it's outragiously insane?

that's literally the law in Spain since 2023 and people are doing exactly that, a declaration they are of the other sex to gain advantages that the law gives to women

Well that obviously isn't going to happen so your moral outrage can simmer down a bit. Nurse will be along with your medication soon. Just try to relax until then.

They said that in Spain as well.

So we went from "you must be full of hatred to have your opinion" to "yes you are absolutely right and trans activist demands are completly crazy but they aren't going to become the law so you are just paranoid".

You are full of hatred though and are not absolutely right about very much at all. What's the argument about?

Why are you asking me when I never mentioned toilets, you did? This isn't an issue I raised in my initial post.

No it isnt

that anyone who wants *the law* (in any aspect) to recognize trans people as being of the opposite sex just on self identification is absolutely, completely wrong, debauched, utterly insane.

that's the argument, now address it without dodging, because that has been the anti-trans activist argument since day one.

and it's not an hypothetical slippery slope, it's something the freaking socialists in Spain wrote into law.

so it's an actual risk coming from the radical left, a present threat to society, for every country which has trans activism.

Nevertheless in the world we’re talking about toilets do exist. So is your plan to get rid of urinals and all gendered public toilets and replace them all with unisex? And at workplaces?

I’m fine with this btw, I’m just interested how you see it working because there’s some resistance to the idea, not least among some men who don’t want to have to join the interminable public toilet queues for cubicles often seen.

Biological sex is as coherent a theory as we have in science. It is the driving force behind evolution, and explains how complex life exists on earth. It's older than plant life.

On the other hand, gender is about 50 years old and it's explanatory power is almost entirely predicated by sex.

So, for the purposes of the law, how are you going to define a "trans woman"?

Others may be more expert at a definition for the purposes of law but this seems okay to me

And gravity is only a few hundred years old. Amazing how we all didn't fly off into space before then.

For clarity, how does one "live as a woman"?

No clarity I'm afraid.

Right, so that is the crux of the issue - it is possible to provide multiple definitions of biological sex, all of which are going to be easy to administer and accurate far in excess of 99% of cases, and have a high degree of convergent validity.

However, even under the mildest probing, the house of cards that is gender ideology collapses as "living as a woman" is so nebulous that it couldn't possible be measured or defined in any way that would stand up to scientific or legal scrutiny.

No I think it;'s fine and far better

You want to know what my plan is for an issue you raised?

Ok, it’s your right to swerve a question you can’t answer.

It’s not a very good scientific definition if it’s wrong in 1% of cases., and especially bad if it means people have to live with incorrect gender assignment.

Sixty years ago people like you were defining sexual intercourse as being between a man and a woman because for them 95% accuracy was enough, and the law agreed.

I do wonder why you’re so obsessed with something that doesn’t affect you at all.

it's a also a red herring.

This is about how we treat trans people. It's not about their biological sex by whatever semantics and definitions some people want to endlessly argue about.

Eh? first of all it's a strawman as I never mentioned toilets. Secondly, after you brought up the issue I readily stated from the get go that I think simply a unisex option would do so I haven't a scooby what you're banging on about. Stop making strawman arguments and attempting gotchas on issues I never raised.

Not an attempt at gotcha. Like I said, it's ok. 👍