Search results

I didn't. I said it could have been a transman, Which means they would be perfectly entitled, even obliged, to use the female toilets. Did you ignore that bit?

More misunderstanding of what was said. The mata data would not be limited by privacy laws. Worth more than your supposed evidence. I'm still waiting.

It's a question based on an argument that you imagined. No-one claimed to have interrogated the police records.

He/she is either a transman,in which case he's complying with the Supreme Court judgement, or your video is completely off-topic. This thread is about trans people, not perverts who intentionally use the wrong toilet for nefarious reasons.

Humour that relies on racism to be funny appeals to racists.

More strawmen arguments. is that all you've got? If you persist with your waffle, I refuse to wrestle with pigs. I'm still waiting for this supposed evidence.

Strange that the police forces have no record of such instances, but you have observed many instances? Did you report any of those instances to the police for their investigation?

Twas ever thus. The recent Supreme Court judgement didn't change that. :rolleyes: Whether he is pretending to be a woman or not has no relevance. It also applies vice-versa. If a woman goes into men's only toilet, irrespective of what she is wearing, she is making a conscious effort to break...

Now you've resorted to pure dishonesty. If that is the typical standard of your debating tactics, you should be ashamed. I'm done wrestling with pigs or playing chess with pigeons. But if you want to debate honestly, with integrity, I'm still here, and waiting.

You are now reduced to cutting and pasting snippets of my posts together to form your own version of what you claim I have said. When long-term members behave in this manner it's no wonder the standard of debate is so acrimonious. I'm still waiting for your supposed evidence.

They may use a unisex space only where unisex is an alternative. If there is no alternative, they are obliged, legally to use the female only space, which is what I've been saying all along. I'm still waiting.

The evidence was provided, twice now. I'm still waiting for your evidence to disprove it. All we've had is waffle, and more waffle.

You're reduced to going round in circles now. :rolleyes: You claimed you could disprove my assertion and all you've done is deny, deny, deny, and presented a conceptual idea of a teapot. I have proven my assertion is true. Here it is again: Everything I have said complies with that judgement...

This is not evidence to disprove my assertion. It's waffle. I'm still waiting.

Still refusing to acknowledge the difference between sex and gender?

No need to thank me if you failed to understand my comment, I was referring to you being the expert on verbosity. And still no evidence to disprove my assertion.

Where is this evidence you said you would use to refute my assertion. I'm still waiting for it. Until you disprove my assertion, it remains true.

More strawmen arguments. You are desperate. You don't think! But just imagine a couple of transmen decide to abide by the law. Suppose they attend a WI meeting, or similar, or the Supreme Court itself perhaps, and during the interval, they use the toilet at the same time as all the other...

You are the expert, coupled with strawman arguments, it's word salad. I.e transmen, who have a birth cert' stating they are biological female, are permitted to use female only spaces. So transmen, who appear to be male can use those spaces, but transwomen who appear to be women can't...

:rolleyes: Childish retort. Not worth responding to. To access a female toilet or changing room or safe space for females, you must have a birth cert' stating that you were assigned the sex of female, i.e. like transmen. Vice versa. To access a space reserved for males you must have a birth...