Ginger men who now identifies as a woman.

[King Billy]

An analogy of the real reason behind most people's refusal to accept that sex is not binary:

The 1837 Act to create the requirement of sex being registered, as only either male or female, for all newborn babies was created by the C of E clergy representatives in the House of Lords, which was overwhelmingly Anglican, and dominated by C of E Bishops and Archbishops. Some RCs were allowed to sit, but few did.
The oath to the Christian doctrine prevented other religions from being represented.

The House of Lords in 1837 was largely a bastion of the established church during a time of significant pressure for reform and increased secularization.

https://academic.oup.com/book/39184/chapter-abstract/338661915?redirectedFrom=fulltext

And we now know that the C of E is old-fashioned and out of touch with reality, just as it was nearly 200 years ago.

The Church of England (C of E) is widely perceived to be in a profound state of decline, characterized by falling attendance, an aging demographic, and a disconnect from modern British culture. While some urban areas see growth, many reports highlight a shrinking, "out-of-touch" institution grappling with cultural irrelevance and internal structural crises.

Thus the designation of only two sexes is a socially constructed model based on C of E bishops and archbishops religious belief, nearly 200 years ago.
It was old-fashioned, outdated and out of touch with reality then, it's even more so today, given the advances in Medical Science over the last 200 years.
The C of E is so out of touch with todays society, it still refuses to allow same-sex marriages and still refuses to consider homosexuality as acceptable.
38% of UK's population have no religion, that's about 20,000,000 people, and rapidly rising. Yet they are still 'governed' by an outdated religious doctrine. https://commonslibrary.parliament.u...n, 46% of,for constituencies in Great Britain.
Of course, some believe its doctrine. and insist it should govern non-believers.

 

[King Billy]

Do you never tell the truth?

I'm still waiting for this supposed evidence you said you would present to prove my assertion false.
All I've had so far is snippets of various posts of mine cobbled together by you in an effort to discredit me, and an immense amount of waffle.

 

[JohnD]

I'm still waiting for this supposed evidence you said you would present to prove my assertion false.

You have yourself admitted that men pretending to be women are not forced against their will to use lavatories confirming to their real sex.

As you admit, they can use lavatories that are not reserved for women. Which are widely available in lavatories provided to the public, as well as inside private homes.

So your original false assertion no longer stands.

 

[King Billy]

You have yourself admitted that men pretending to be women are not forced against their will to use lavatories confirming to their real sex.

I have admitted no such thing.
Where there are no unisex spaces available, a transman is obliged to use the toilets according to his birth cert', which is assumed to be female.
He can if he wishes go against the Supreme Court judgement and use the male spaces, but he's liable to commit an offence.
And no-one mentioned him being forced against his will. He'd prefer to use the spaces that he feels most comfortable.
So that's yet another strawman argument you've employed.

As you admit, they can use lavatories that are not reserved for women. Which are widely available in lavatories provided to the public,

Of course if their unisex spaces, anyone can use them. Even an alien could use them.
But where there are no unisex spaces, a transman is obliged to use the female spaces.
I can't off-hand remember seeing any unisex spaces on my travels, they've all been single sex spaces.

as well as inside private homes.

Most spaces in private houses are not reserved for either sex.

So your original false assertion no longer stands.

It stands as the original was posted, because to anyone with half a brain, where unisex spaces are available, anyone can use them.
But where there are no unisex spaces available a transman is obliged to use the female spaces, or risk committing an offence.

If you are basing your claim that you've disproved my assertion because I didn't think it necessary to be sufficiently explicit to exclude the option of using a unisex space where they exist, that's a very flimsy and nonsensical proof. I didn't think that anyone would be so juvenile to use that as proof.
Indeed, they could go down an entry, or stand in the middle of the street, if that disproves my assertion, because it's on the same ludicrous level as your, "they can use unisex spaces".
I guess I overestimated you.

The same applies to transwomen in all my comments. if I need to spell it out explicitly so that you don't fail to understand. I will do.

I'll remember to not wrestle with pigs nor play chess with pigeon-brained people, next time.

Now where's that proof you promised?

Your claim about my non-existent admittance is not proof. Nor, imo, is your argument about the use of unisex spaces.

 

[JohnD]

King Billy "Oranges are the only fruit, and trans people are forced by law to eat them"

JohnD "That is not true"

King Billy "Yes it is and you cannot prove otherwise "

JohnD "Apples, Bananas, lemons and grapefruit are readily available in most places that sell fruit, and nobody prevents trans people from eating them."

King Billy "Oranges are the only fruit, apart from Apples, Bananas, lemons and grapefruit, and trans people are forced by law to eat them, unless other fruits are available"

JohnD "So you admit your earlier claim was not true"

King Billy "No I don't! Oranges are the only fruit, and trans people are forced by law to eat them. Apart from all the others. That's what I said in the first place."

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Are oranges and bananas references to gender-specific body parts?

I've no idea what you two are attemping to argue about, but I think you both just disagree on principle.