Search results for query: ignore

No, it hasn't been. Nobody has yet explained what genetic characteristics are used to define women. So that's falsehood #1. Falsehoods #2, #3, & #4. Doesn't matter how rare - either sex is binary, or it is not. And it's not. BTW - that figure is wrong. In terms of XY chromosome...

Already explained. Asking again doesn't change the answer. Also, this is your classic trick to mud waters: ask something, get an answer you don't like, write 3 pages of rubbish, ask same question again claiming it's not been answered, repeat ad infinitum. Told you before, we are ALL a lot more...

Don't tell that to Pete01's children - he'll punch you.

What genetic characteristics are used to make the definition? But does it mean that people can only be either male or female? Ridicule is not a helpful contribution to the debate. So I'm ignorant for saying that not all women have "wide" hips, some are narrow and yet they can still give...

21 pages of Himmy's nonsense. Must be a record! Women are defined genetically. The genetic abnormality you talk about are just that, a genetic abnormality. All living creatures can be born with genetic abnormalities, that doesn't make any difference to people born with XX or xy chromosomes. The...

I found it quite appalling.

Foolish Billy continues in ignorance since he has not read the Agreed Facts. Unlike him, I read the transcript of the Tribunal.

You did give some characteristics, let me deal with each one: not always true nor accurate, and is not usually tested on babies a few hours old. We're talking about babies s few hours old. I'm asking you to define the differences, and I've been asking you for days, and so far we have: must...

Given you plenty of examples that I notice you have completely ignored but cherry picked the ones that you feel that you have an argument by twisting the very clear definition and characteristics that I gave. You may struggle to know the differences, I dont, you havent put up a single argument...

More vituperation. More hate. More wilful ignorance. More denials of truth and facts. More prejudice. More driving to total polarisation. More inflammatory language. More pound-shop Spline stuff from you which makes it pointless ever trying to get you to behave in any...

...see you are familiar with Doctor Upton, a man who calls himself a woman. I am sure you are already aware of the case. If you have chosen to ignore the facets that show his behaviour in a poor light, I suggest you look again. I notice you call him "she," suggesting that he is a woman...

Are you transgender?

But it's the way you're doing it. The vituperation and hate. The wilful ignorance. The denials of truth and facts. The prejudice. The gross misrepresentation of the positions of people you disagree with. The drive to total polarisation just like the Israel/Palestine analogy I gave. The...

Hmmm. There is something which puzzles me though. On almost every topic you post on you have a liberal leaning. You reject the swivel-eyed right wing views on disabled people, migrants, vaccines, flags, Israel/Palestine, you name it, but on this particular one you've swallowed every drop...

No - that is not the issue. Wilful ignorance, denial of science, false beliefs and transphobia are the issues. I haven't waffled on about anything, And what has he said, which makes any sense, and is rooted in reason?

I have no interest in any of your suggestions. Try to control your wild imaginings. I am, however, interested in women having the right to spaces and events where people are not admitted if they are not women. I find it curious that you and people like you wish to deny them that right.

Who put 50p in Mrs Doubtfire ?

If someone disagrees with me im not too fussed why do you care so much?

...be able to denigrate them out of existence. You are not going to be able to legislate them out of existence. You are not going to be able to ignore them out of existence. You are not going to be able to deny them out of existence. You are not going to be able to oppress them out of...

...would stop Israel from launching an imminent drone attack on Gaza' And when the defendant cannot give any sort of coherent answer, the jury would choose not to believe him. Or, as in this case, the judge would rule that it was utter nonsense and tell the jury to ignore that line of defence.