Woman and Sex, means biological sex.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Because this site attracts a disproportionate number of people who think that their ignorance and bigotry and prejudices trump the truth, and facts, and science.

No, you're one of a small, but very vociferous, minority.
 
If you are so lazy that you won't read replies with multiple quotes then you owe it to others to stay out of discussions rather than expect the discussions to be lowered to your level of laziness.
I'll do what I want, thanks.

Where's the next stop today, Trans Central?

Choo Chooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ...
 
I worked in an office once where, in a space used for meetings, along one wall there were several doors, unsigned apart from "WC". Are you saying that some people would have been embarrassed to be seen opening a door and entering or leaving the space behind it?
No.
 
In what way is it wrong?

In practical terms, if the court has ruled that words in an Act (man/woman/male/female/sex) are now to be read as if there was another word, "biological" inserted before them then that is changing the Act. It is a ruling which orders legislation to say <something in particular>, just as if it was a ruling ordering that entirely new legislation saying <something in particular> be passed.

I honestly can't face trying to explain this to somebody who seems to be so confused about the separation of powers, the role of the courts and the supremacy of Parliament.
 
So you don't think the recent SC ruling has changed the Equality Act 2010 in any way?

Not as far as I am concerned. I always thought it meant what the Judgment says.

It still works exactly as it did before, in all respects?

Your question is a straw man. The Act's meaning has been interpreted and clarified. This is the proper role of the courts.

How could that have happened with supremacy of Parliament?

It was actually the ECHR, not the EU. That was a mistake of my behalf. But the same principle applies. In some cases there are limits to the supremacy of Parliament, such as when we are bound by international treaties. In the recent Supreme Court case, though, that wasn't the case. So, another straw man.
 
tired-bored.gif
 
I state my opinions.

Other people state theirs.

That's how it works.
YOU are trolling. There's a difference. You said your niche piece but keep on trolling.

You fill the thread with crap., stupididity, personal attacks, illogic, irrelevant valueless rubbish, over and over and over and over, with nothing but your need to say something.
Reported.
 
"Discuss or debate topical issues here" it says.

This is not doing a good job of discussing or debating -







Refusing to read replies because you can't be ar5ed is not doing a good job of discussing or debating -
Mind the gap, mind the gap.

(whistle)

Choo ...... choo ...... choo .... choo .... choo .. choo .. choo choo chooooooooooooo
 
Oh, I'm well aware that someone who prefers truth over falsehoods, science over superstition, knowledge over ignorance, reality over delusion, facts over fantasy is in a minority here.

No, they aren't.

The people in a minority are those who, like yourself, want to pretend that a man is a woman.

Which is a delusion, not a fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top