Ginger men who now identifies as a woman.

[Jurassicspark]

I went into a petshop and asked for twelve bees. The shopkeeper counted out thirteen and handed them over

“You’ve given me one too many.”

“That one is a freebie.”

Are you sure the “free” bee wasn’t highwayman?

 

[warey4life]

That's not entirely true. Many women are naturally stronger, faster, better, etc than many men.
So it's very simplistic to claim that men have an advantage over women.

It's entirely accurate to claim that males generally have a physical advantage over females.

Unless he/she is intersex. Or they were assigned the wrong sex at birth.

Sex is also a social construct, because society only recognises the opposite ends of a continuum. According to society there are no possible positions anywhere along that continuum except at the extreme ends.Medical Science knows that's not true nor accurate.

Sex is not a social construct. Rare cases of intersex does disprove the binary nature of reproduction.

 

[JohnD]

. According to society there are no possible positions anywhere along that continuum

Very brave of you to think you can speak for "society"

 

[King Billy]

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I've presented the evidence, twice now:

Based on a April 2025 UK Supreme Court ruling, legal sex in the Equality Act 2010 is interpreted as biological sex recorded at birth, overriding changes made by a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) for purposes like single-sex spaces. This landmark judgment, For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers, established that "woman" and "sex" refer to sex assigned at birth.

I'll explain it to you:
Males, according to their birth certificate must use the male spaces, and females, according to their birth certificate must use the female spaces. Their gender is now irrelevant as far as which space they can use.

It couldn't be any clearer.
Of course it's equally as error strewn as the 1837 Act requiring all babies to be registered as male or female at birth, because it doesn't deal with, nor recognise the reality.
It's error strewn, because now transwomen have to use the male spaces, and transmen have to use the female spaces.
Who is the most embarrassed? A transman using the female spaces, or the women in those spaces?
And vice versa?

I'm still waiting for your evidence to disprove what I have, with the evidence, asserted.

 

[King Billy]

Utter nonsense.

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 411573

That analogy relies on two funadamental concepts:
1. An assertion is an assertion. It does not become "false" until it's proven to be false. You described my assertion as "false" without disproving it.
Therefore my assertion remains credible and true until you disprove it.
2. Russell's teapot relies on an assertion being credible and true if it cannot be disproven. My assertion is crystal clear, and I have provided the evidence to prove it. You claim to have disproved it, without providing any evidence. Instead you claim that you don't need evidence to disprove my, with evidence, assertion. Which is the real nonsense.

So I'm still waiting.

 

[King Billy]

You first.

That assertion is false.
Don't try the trick of posting something else in the hope of diverting attention from your false claim.

Very brave of you to think you can speak for "society"

So stop playing games, and try an intelligent reasoned discussion.

 

[King Billy]

It's entirely accurate to claim that males generally have a physical advantage over females.

You're misquoting or intentionally misinterpreting what I said.
I said many women are stronger, fatser, etc than many men.

Sex is not a social construct. Rare cases of intersex does disprove the binary nature of reproduction.

a) it's not so rare. It's several hundred thousand in UK. The number of intersex in UK outnumber the amount of people who identify as Cornish.
And you're right, occasional cases of intersex does disprove the binary nature of sex.
b) the assignment of only male or female is a socially constructed concept because it ignores medical science's reality. It was socially constructed by C of E in the 1837 Act, by ignoring the occasional cases of intersex.
It's like the Duke of Yorks 10,000 men. Were they up the hill or down? Were they all of them up the hill, at any one time?
So if the House of Lords passed a decree that the D of Y's men must be either up the hill or down, and could not be half way up, it would be an Act that has been constructed on an error strewn social concept.

 

[King Billy]

Very brave of you to think you can speak for "society"

I'm paraphrasing the 1837 Act, and the recent Supreme Court judgement.

...
Sex is also a social construct, because society only recognises the opposite ends of a continuum. According to society there are no possible positions anywhere along that continuum except at the extreme ends. Medical Science knows that's not true nor accurate.
But society and the 1837 law overrides science.
...
But it's interesting that you have limited your 'scientific' argument, for what it is, solely to male humans, amd changing to female gender.
The opposite occurs also.

Do you accept that people are born intersex, or do you deny that it happens?
Do you refute the data, and pretend it doesn't exist, or it's been invented?

 

[Highway Man]

Are you sure the “free” bee wasn’t highwayman?

Reported

 

[Odds]

Very brave of you to think you can speak for "society"

We all 'speak up for society' in one way or t'other. Or our version of it, any road.
Take a look around you and see which version you're comfortable with and live with it, by it, in it or on it.
This version of 'society' i see growing out of the rhetoric spreading around by 'reform' and their minions is one i choose to disdain. I see now i grew up in a progressive, more tolerant era and regret the opportunities missed by my peers to advance those causes more effectively. My generation (X) did their best but it's now up to the new wave to do more for those causes in hope our 'society' can arrive at a more hopeful future than the one being promoted by a far right group which grows by the day.

 

[Highway Man]

We all 'speak up for society' in one way or t'other. Or our version of it, any road.
Take a look around you and see which version you're comfortable with and live with it, by it, in it or on it.
This version of 'society' i see growing out of the rhetoric spreading around by 'reform' and their minions is one i choose to disdain. I see now i grew up in a progressive, more tolerant era and regret the opportunities missed by my peers to advance those causes more effectively. My generation (X) did their best but it's now up to the new wave to do more for those causes in hope our 'society' can arrive at a more hopeful future than the one being promoted by a far right group which grows by the day.

It grows by the day because it makes more sense to people than the nandy pandy be tolerent of of others and let them walk all over you types.

 

[King Billy]

It grows by the day because it makes more sense to people than the nandy pandy be tolerent of of others and let them walk all over you types.

It's OK to be intolerant. It's also OK to illustrate your intolerance with examples of your intolerant behaviour.
It's even OK to preach intolerance, within the limits of the law.
But then live with the intolerant society you're responsible for creating.
We make society, and society makes us.
Here's a short video that explains it simply.

Behave with intolerance, and you are teaching others, especially those vulnerable to following others, to be intolerant.

 

[Highway Man]

It's OK to be intolerant. It's also OK to illustrate your intolerance with examples of your intolerant behaviour.
It's even OK to preach intolerance, within the limits of the law.
But then live with the intolerant society you're responsible for creating.
We make society, and society makes us.
Here's a short video that explains it simply.

Behave with intolerance, and you are teaching others, especially those vulnerable to following others, to be intolerant.

Nobody is talking of sensible tolerance, our tolerance has gone beyond the sensible tolerance and become ridiculous.

 

[King Billy]

It grows by the day because it makes more sense to people than the nandy pandy be tolerent of of others and let them walk all over you types.

If it grows, then it is because it's fomented by the intolerant people in society, the people who want to maintain their ownership of privilege.

Nasrine Malik explains it as the privileged trying to maintain their privilege by denying it to others, creating and reinforcing myths to achieve that.
She explains how the very fact of them creating myths to blame others, to maintain their possession of privilege, destroys their myth that their ownership of privilege does not exist.

From her book, "We Need New Stories"
Paraphrased from memory.
I'm not as eloquent as she is with her explanation.

 

[King Billy]

Nobody is talking of sensible tolerance, our tolerance has gone beyond the sensible tolerance and become ridiculous.

Then it's become intolerance.