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It was old-fashioned, outdated and out of touch with reality then, it's even more so today, given the advances in Medical Science over the last 200 years.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 Yet they are still 'governed' by an outdated religious doctrine.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.

 

[King Billy]

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."

Your analogy is ludicrous for several reasons.
1. Everyone knows that there is a wide variety of fruit available. It doesn't need specifying explicitly.
2. All of those fruits were available prior to a (metaphoric) Supreme Court decision.
3. All of those fruits are still available for anyone to eat them after the Court's decision.
4. It would be obvious to all that after my first comment you would present that as an argument, not after 5 pages of verbose waffling about conceptual teapots and claims to be able to disprove my assertion with evidence, without actually doing so.

Let me present a synopsis of your arguments in this thread:

I joined in the discussion on page 3.
You joined in the discussion on page 6 arguing that you refuse to accept that people can decide their own gender. It was page 6, post 85 where I first mentioned the law requiring transmen to use female only spaces. it was also page 6, post 89 where you first mentioned your bigoted belief, or non-belief, about gender v sex.
Page 7 you were merely giving bland denials without any counter argument or evidence.
Page 8 you were still giving bland denials and claiming you had disproved my assertion.
Page 10 you weres still presenting nothing but bland denials.
Page 11 you introduced the conceptual teapot argument, and very little else. I first referred to the changes due to the Supreme Court judgement, post 160. So it was obvious from then on that I was referring to changes due to that legislation.
Page 15 eventually after 15 pages, it dawned on you that the only argument you had to disprove my assertion was to introduce unisex spaces, Post 217.
I immediately agree in the following post 218 that, yes of course unisex spaces existed prior to the Court's judgment and will continue to exist. The Court judgement did not affect that, nor who could use them.
Then for the last 5 pages all you've offered is waffle, strawman arguments, bigoted nonsense and claims that you've disproved my assertion because anyone can use unisex spaces.

Of course anyone can use unisex spaces. The Supreme Court judgement did not change that in one iota.
But what the Supreme Court judgment did change, is that where unisex spaces do not exist, transmen are obliged to use the female only spaces in order to comply with the Judgement.

Now please accept my apologies if you thought this discussion was not just about the recent Supreme Court judgement and how it affected trans people. But I thought that was so utterly obvious that it didn't need to be explicitly mentioned.
And now for you to resort to the existence of unisex spaces, which have always been available for anyone, as a proof that my assertion was not true is a flimsy, last resort and unnecessary claim.

I suspect you wanted several pages of spouting your bigoted nonsense because you cannot accept that people can choose their own gender, and that sex is not binary, it never has been, and it never will be.


Now if you haven't got anything more substantial to offer on this subject, my advice is that you ought to keep your bigoted waffling for echo chambers.

 

[King Billy]

I've mentioned several times about how the concept of binary sex was introduced in UK.
Many countries accept the Medical Science that sex is not binary, including some European countries, such as Germany, Denmark, Iceland and Malta.
There are also many advanced countries similar to UK where sex is legally not binary, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand.
6 countries were added to the list of those who recognised that sex was not binary in 2025 alone. The number is growing.

Legal recognition of non-binary gender by country | Equaldex

Equaldex is a collaborative knowledge base for the LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) movement, visualizing LGBTQ+ rights through maps, timelines, and data.

www.equaldex.com

There have been many references in this forum to Female Genital Mutilation, (FGM) and there have been, rightly, many expressing disgust and horror at such mutilation.
Yet nearly all countries perform 'normalising' genital surgery, without express consent on intersex babies.

Intersex infant surgery by country | Equaldex

Equaldex is a collaborative knowledge base for the LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) movement, visualizing LGBTQ+ rights through maps, timelines, and data.

www.equaldex.com

The UN see unnecessary surgery on intersex babies without consent as an act of violence and a harmful practice.
The EU is moving towards a ban on such surgeries, seeing them as Human Rights violations and genital mutilation.

Yet UK still does not ban unnecessary genital surgery on intersex babies, due to its outdated, old-fashioned, religiously-inspired refusal to recognise that intersex is a fact of life.

we live in a world in which many parents want to know whether to put their newborn in a blue or a pink hat, and gender reconstruction surgery for babies born with differences in sex development (DSD) is still legal in most countries, including the UK and the US

‘I don’t want anyone to suffer like I did’: the intersex campaigners fighting to limit surgery on children

What should be done about the small proportion of babies born with genitals that are neither typically male nor typically female? Many of those affected believe parents and doctors are often too quick to schedule operations

www.theguardian.com

It's time we grew up, threw off all the old religously-inspired bigotry and recognised, legally, that sex is not binary.
A ban on genital mutilation on intersex babies is an urgent requirement. Lets stop making gender recognition, especially due to the wrong sex being applied and in may cases artificially produced, a lifelong problem for intersex people.
This is an urgent and necessary step forwards and into the civilised world required for UK's politicians and populace.
Is the UK sufficiently educated and aware to take this step?