Woman and Sex, means biological sex.

[MNW67]

That still leaves a straightforward question, in two halves, unanswered by you

If you don't believe that if you don't mention homosexuality to a child they will not feel the need to have sex with someone the same sex as them, why do you believe that not mentioning that some people are transgender will stop children feeling the need to change sex?

And if you do believe it, where's your proof that it works? That nobody would "become" homosexual if the concept was never mentioned to them?

One might almost think that you don't want to answer it, as doing so would cause your totally incompatible beliefs to collide and self-destruct.

Are you The Riddler?

 

[Koolpc]

Because of people like you.

Because of people like you who encourage people like them to believe that mutilating their bodies to become something they are not meant to be is ok and 'normal'

 

[Koolpc]

Doesn't matter how often you say that - it will always be wrong.

Doesn't matter how often you believe that - it will always be wrong....there are only 2 sexes...male and female!

 

[MNW67]

But did Liar know that?

Does that matter?

 

[JohnD]

Does that matter?

I asked because his words suggested he didn't.

Not sure, but wasn't the Tavistock clinic closed down because they were doing these procedures (legally)?

No need for you to interpose yourself.

 

[morqthana]

Did I confirm?

Yup.

I asked you to define a term you used and to provide evidence of that having happened. I wouldn't have done that if I agreed with your definition of the term and knew of evidence of it having happened - what wold have been the point? I was also pretty certain that you wouldn't be able to define the term, as I strongly suspect that you say things without knowing what they mean, and therefore also pretty certain that there is no evidence to support whatever fantasy you have.

And you confirmed I was right by failing to do either of those things.

BTW - if at this stage you're thinking of trying to claim that you could define the term, and could provide the evidence, but have simply chosen not to you, then consider whether, even by your standards of delusion, it is conceivable that if you could prove that I am wrong and you are right you would elect not to do so.

 

[MNW67]

I asked because his words suggested he didn't.

No need for you to interpose yourself.

I was just confused by why it is so important for you to know. Somebody asks a question on a discussion forum. Another person provides them with information. That is how a discussion is supposed to work. In my experience, anyway.

 

[MNW67]

Yup.

I asked you to define a term you used and to provide evidence of that having happened. I wouldn't have done that if I agreed with your definition of the term and knew of evidence of it having happened - what wold have been the point? I was also pretty certain that you wouldn't be able to define the term, as I strongly suspect that you say things without knowing what they mean, and therefore also pretty certain that there is no evidence to support whatever fantasy you have.

And you confirmed I was right by failing to do either of those things.

BTW - if at this stage you're thinking of trying to claim that you could define the term, and could provide the evidence, but have simply chosen not to you, then consider whether, even by your standards of delusion, it is conceivable that if you could prove that I am wrong and you are right you would elect not to do so.

I am pretty sure that @pete01 has lost all interest in your questions.

 

[morqthana]

"if all the following apply:

• you were born between 31 October 1953 and 6 November 1953
• you had lived in your acquired gender for at least 2 years by 31 October 2018
• you have had gender reassignment surgery"

AFAIK most people who describe themselves as trans do not meet all these criteria.

And I struggle to accept that people would live in an acquired gender for 2 years and undergo surgery just to scam a pension entitlement as suggested by motorbiking.

Do people like him really not realise how deranged their claims are? Or do they simply not care just as long as someone equally deranged repeats them?

 

[JohnD]

I was just confused by why it is so important for you to know. Somebody asks a question on a discussion forum. Another person provides them with information. That is how a discussion is supposed to work. In my experience, anyway.

You are not able to provide information on what Lire meant or believed.

 

[morqthana]

But did Liar know that?

Don't know.

But to be fair he didn't explicitly mention surgery. The Tavistock GIDS did indeed engage in inappropriate drug treatments, but they are hardly outliers in the NHS, or any other health services world-wide, in having done that in the context of any number of "conditions" requiring some sort of therapy.

 

[JohnD]

But to be fair he didn't explicitly mention surgery.

That's why I asked him.

 

[morqthana]

Doesn't matter how often you believe that - it will always be wrong....there are only 2 sexes...male and female!

As I said earlier - there is no definition of "sex" which you will be able to reference which results in there being only two.

Go on - prove me wrong - I dare you.

I get that you don't like scientific facts which don't agree with your ignorance, but no matter how much distress reality may cause you, you can't change it.

You can keep on asserting that "there are only 2 sexes...male and female" until the Sun dies, but it won't ever make it true.

 

[morqthana]

Somebody asks a question on a discussion forum. Another person provides them with information. That is how a discussion is supposed to work. In my experience, anyway.

There is at least one person here who believes that the way it is supposed to work is that they are asked to provide some information, they refuse, and nobody is expected to think that they've refused because they cannot.

 

[morqthana]

I am pretty sure that @pete01 has lost all interest in your questions.

Perhaps he should have just answered it the first time, rather than going for the dance of ignominious failure.