It's a sad and sorry state of affairs that we now have to have debates here with people who can't read a court ruling and see that it is about what the court thought Parliament intended wrt the use of one term in one Act.
Your imagination, or desire.
What was weird about my post?
It can't be a factual position if it is based on a non-fact.
You mean an in-depth and informed discussion of biology?
Make the first 'D' 'differences'.
That'll work.
OK - you're just another one of those who bandies that term around without being able to define it.
And when it's a subject area in which one has no expertise whatsoever, it is folly (and that's putting it politely) to maintain a position based on ignorance and cherry-picking the evidence to "consider".
But he does say that gamete size does that.
And the law already provided for the existence of single-sex spaces.
