No go zones for beliefs

Don't shout. It doesn't make your position any less wrong. Gender is a construct of society. Many societies recognise more than two genders and have for millennia. Yours is an arrogant assumption that your minority viewpoint in your minority faith of a minority culture is some way TRUE because you shout it rather than provide any actual evidence. The evidence is against you. That there are only two genders is untrue. You are building your morality on sand. That's your privilege, just as it is mine to both disagree and show that you are wrong.
Your position IS wrong Temujin. Your statement is an idiotic mentally retarded delusional lie.
There are two sexes, male and female. They are observable and quantifiable. The male has XY chromosomes and male anatomy and the female has XX chromosomes and female anatomy. So its binary

You have been asked what other sex is there, what other sex determining chromosomes are there other than X and Y? None! What other sexual reprodutive organs other than penis and vagina? None!

You ridicule scientists and you peddle the lie over and over again. Gender constructs deny bioligical sex. They are made up lies.

The tide is turning. All polls show that 2/3 of the Scottish population did not want self sex ID yet woke activists like yourself claim the majority. The UK government needs to overturn that.
Everytime you and your woke ilk peddle this lie, its needs to be rejected and called out for the lie it is.
 
Don't shout. It doesn't make your position any less wrong. Gender is a construct of society.
Okay fine. Then Sex. You are equivocating and you know it. You know exactly what I am getting at. But you, like lawyers, want to turn this in to a game of semantics.

I agree that there is nothing in feminine that means girls have to play with dolls, have pink rooms, not like to work on cars, etc. I agree there is nothing in masculine that means men have to like trucks, toy soldiers, blue rooms, etc. The way what it means to be male or female often does change with the times.

For example, in the 20's, it was a woman's legs that men were in to, not breasts. Short hair on women was also in fashion. Today, at least in America, that changed. Now breasts tend to be emphasized. In parts of Africa, it is the neck. In the 1800's there was a point where it was considered attractive for women to have facial hair. Things have changed now too.

But----this does not mean Sex is fluid. It does not mean one can change their Sex. It does not entail that men can get pregnant. It does not mean surgery changes anything. All surgery does is change the appearances. It does not change the Sex.

Hence, if Sue Doe wants to walk around with a crew cut, facial hair, drive a four door pick-up truck, chew tobacco and spit, fine. But that does not mean Sue Doe is a man. If Joe Schmoe wants to drive a pink Prius, have a doll collection, wear perfume, paint his nails, shave his body, and run a boutique, that does not make him a woman.
Many societies recognise more than two genders and have for millennia.
You are playing semantics like some lawyer in court. Fine. There are two Sexes.
Yours is an arrogant assumption that your minority viewpoint in your minority faith of a minority culture is some way TRUE because you shout it rather than provide any actual evidence. The evidence is against you. That there are only two genders is untrue. You are building your morality on sand. That's your privilege, just as it is mine to both disagree and show that you are wrong.
There are two Sexes. You knew what I meant. You just want to play semantics and word games like lawyers.

In short: we are not justified in calling someone a man becasue they have chosen to look masculine in appearances but are a biological female, nor are we justified in calling someone a woman becasue they have chosen to look female in appearance but are a biological male.

This is the overarching point that you are intentionally ignoring with your attempts to lawyer me.
 
Your position IS wrong Temujin. Your statement is an idiotic mentally retarded delusional lie.
There are two sexes, male and female. They are observable and quantifiable. The male has XY chromosomes and male anatomy and the female has XX chromosomes and female anatomy. So its binary

You have been asked what other sex is there, what other sex determining chromosomes are there other than X and Y? None! What other sexual reprodutive organs other than penis and vagina? None!

You ridicule scientists and you peddle the lie over and over again. Gender constructs deny bioligical sex. They are made up lies.

The tide is turning. All polls show that 2/3 of the Scottish population did not want self sex ID yet woke activists like yourself claim the majority. The UK government needs to overturn that.
Everytime you and your woke ilk peddle this lie, its needs to be rejected and called out for the lie it is.
He is playing lawyerly type word games and he knows it.

He does not seem to grasp that if you have to start with cheap lawyer tactics to win an argument, you have already lost.
 
Your position IS wrong Temujin. Your statement is an idiotic mentally retarded delusional lie.
There are two sexes, male and female. They are observable and quantifiable. The male has XY chromosomes and male anatomy and the female has XX chromosomes and female anatomy. So its binary
By the way---be careful about the chromosomes. People like him will come back with "Oh yeah? Well what about when a person has only an X chromosome, huh? What about when they have a YY chromosome, huh? What about when they have XXY, huh? Yeah! So there! I win!"

Male/female lie in the gametes, not the chromosomes. Males produce a certain type of gamete, females another. Thus, even if the chromosomes are confusing, you look at the gametes. Even IF I could grant that sometimes the chromosomes do not develop correctly, or otherwise create a potential "non-binary" person, it does not disprove that there are two sexes. You do not disprove the rule by the exceptions. All it proves is that sometimes things go wrong in development and it becomes difficult to determine what the person is as a result.

The woke left has a tendency to use the exception to disprove the rule.
 
Wrong again. There's a drive to persuade society to act in accordance with one's own values, to persuade others that you are right. This isn't difficult for the most part, since you got your values from that society.
I got my values from society!!?? Yeah---no one would accuse me of being worker than thou. I tend to stand against the insanity in society right now.
Racism as a concept took a long time to arise, and then a long time to be considered morally wrong and will take a long time to eradicate.
Do we have an obligation to eradicate racism or not? Does one have an obligation not to be racist? Yes or no?
 
Okay fine. Then Sex. You are equivocating and you know it. You know exactly what I am getting at. But you, like lawyers, want to turn this in to a game of semantics.

I agree that there is nothing in feminine that means girls have to play with dolls, have pink rooms, not like to work on cars, etc. I agree there is nothing in masculine that means men have to like trucks, toy soldiers, blue rooms, etc. The way what it means to be male or female often does change with the times.

For example, in the 20's, it was a woman's legs that men were in to, not breasts. Short hair on women was also in fashion. Today, at least in America, that changed. Now breasts tend to be emphasized. In parts of Africa, it is the neck. In the 1800's there was a point where it was considered attractive for women to have facial hair. Things have changed now too.

But----this does not mean Sex is fluid. It does not mean one can change their Sex. It does not entail that men can get pregnant. It does not mean surgery changes anything. All surgery does is change the appearances. It does not change the Sex.

Hence, if Sue Doe wants to walk around with a crew cut, facial hair, drive a four door pick-up truck, chew tobacco and spit, fine. But that does not mean Sue Doe is a man. If Joe Schmoe wants to drive a pink Prius, have a doll collection, wear perfume, paint his nails, shave his body, and run a boutique, that does not make him a woman.

You are playing semantics like some lawyer in court. Fine. There are two Sexes.

There are two Sexes. You knew what I meant. You just want to play semantics and word games like lawyers.

In short: we are not justified in calling someone a man becasue they have chosen to look masculine in appearances but are a biological female, nor are we justified in calling someone a woman becasue they have chosen to look female in appearance but are a biological male.

This is the overarching point that you are intentionally ignoring with your attempts to lawyer me.
There is more than one definition of the terms man and woman. One is indeed the one you are using, referring to sex, XY chromosomes etc. Another definition of woman is an adult who identifies as, lives her life as and is officially recognised as female even though she may have been considered a different sex at birth. That definition is real. It describes real people and conforms with the legal and social reality in most countries. It is not in conflict with the biological definition you recognise. There's no problem with a person being trans. It makes us more careful when talking about some issues such as pregnancy or gynaecological problems, but that is not a problem. We now have a more accurate way of describing how real people live their lives. It just doesn't matter that a few people feel comfortable only when living as a gender different to that in which they were brought up. It's not as if this is a new phenomenon. I really don't see the rationale behind the rigid insistence that our society should be run on biological lines rather than in a way that makes people fulfilled. It's not a question of lawyering you, though legally speaking you haven't a leg to stand on. It's the unreasonableness of this insistence on a binary world, in the teeth of the evidence, and for what? What is gained by discrimination against these people?
 
I got my values from society!!?? Yeah---no one would accuse me of being worker than thou. I tend to stand against the insanity in society right now.

Do we have an obligation to eradicate racism or not? Does one have an obligation not to be racist? Yes or no?
I feel a personal obligation to stand against racism, and homophobia, and transphobia when I see it. Society may impose an obligation to at least avoid promoting such corrosive values. There's nowhere, other than oneself or one's society and peers, for such an obligation to come from. If you mean some other kind of obligation, then you will need to specify what you mean. If you are thinking of an anti racist obligation along the lines of gravity, then I would have to say, don't be absurd.
 
There is more than one definition of the terms man and woman.
Nope. Woman is the adult female

One is indeed the one you are using, referring to sex, XY chromosomes etc.
Ok , that is a man.
Another definition of woman
Nope, you have just given a definition of a man, so it cant be 'another'

is an adult who identifies as, lives her life as and is officially recognised as female even though she may have been considered a different sex at birth.
Then a woman cant be the female with XX. The sexual development of the human being begins at about 6-8 weeks, when if the Y chromosome is present it is already a male.
That definition is real.
No, its a lie.
It describes real people and conforms with the legal and social reality in most countries.
Nope. sex is immutable.
It is not in conflict with the biological definition you recognise.
It is a lie. A woman cant be a person with XX chromosomes and female anatomy AND a person with XY chromosomes and male anatomy. That is the lie of your gender identity.
There's no problem with a person being trans.
Not science. No such thing as 'being' trans

We now have a more accurate way of describing how real people live their lives.
You now have a lie. We dont
I really don't see the rationale behind the rigid insistence that our society should be run on biological lines rather than in a way that makes people fulfilled.
Because its a lie and many who fall for it are not only not fulfilled, but have had their lives ruined and are infertile and on hormones for the rest of their lives.. because of the lie you are peddling
 
I feel a personal obligation to stand against racism, and homophobia, and transphobia when I see it.
And so do many gays and lesbians, however they are right and you are promoting homophobia and misogyny with the gender identity lie your are peddling
 
I feel a personal obligation to stand against racism, and homophobia, and transphobia when I see it.
Yes you do. And while you do not state it, it is clear that you look down on people who do not. This suggests you think people have an obligation to stand with you.

For the record, so do I--when it comes to racism.

As for standing against "homophobia" and "transphobia" we both agree here too. The problem is that we define what that means differently.

Do I care that Joe and John want to shack up, play house, formally make a commitment to one another that they believe is a marriage? No. Their house, their rules. For that matter I do not care of Joe, John, Bob, and Harry want to shack up, play house, formally commit to each other, etc. Their house, their lives, their rules. Whatever.

Do I care that Sue who is a biological female wants to be known as Bob, grow a beard, shave her head, and otherwise identify as a man? Nope.

So what is the problem?

When Sue wants me to go along with her mental delusion, now she is infringing on my rights. When Sue comes into my place of business and insists she use the men's room becasue she identifies as a man, now she is infringing on my rights. It is my business, not hers. I make the rules in my business, not her. If she does not like the rules in my business, she is free to leave and go somewhere else.

When the gay couple comes into my bakery and not only wants to buy a cake, but force me to create a cake with symbols and speech I find morally abhorrent, now they are infringing on my rights. It is my business, not theirs. They are free to leave and find a business that will do that for them.

My point? I have rights too. That is what you and the woke left seem to forget. A person's right to be them is fine. It is when they start infringing on my rights that I have a problem with.
Society may impose an obligation to at least avoid promoting such corrosive values.
I say live and let live. But if you want to come into my business, you play by my rules or you go find another business. Just like if I went into a business I would have to play by their rules. This means if I went to the gay baker and they refused to decorate a cake with traditional wedding symbols, I would leave and go to another baker. If I went to the business that allows men to use the the lady's room and visa-versa, I would leave. See? Everyone wins. Everyone gets to live as they wish.

And these are corrosive values? No, leftist wokism is corrosive becasue wokism says "Only people I agree with get to have rights."

Does this lead down the road to "whites only?" As I said, you got me there. I have no answer for that at this time. But somewhere I am sure there is an answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
Yes you do. And while you do not state it, it is clear that you look down on people who do not. This suggests you think people have an obligation to stand with you.

For the record, so do I--when it comes to racism.

As for standing against "homophobia" and "transphobia" we both agree here too. The problem is that we define what that means differently.

Do I care that Joe and John want to shack up, play house, formally make a commitment to one another that they believe is a marriage? No. Their house, their rules. For that matter I do not care of Joe, John, Bob, and Harry want to shack up, play house, formally commit to each other, etc. Their house, their lives, their rules. Whatever.

Do I care that Sue who is a biological female wants to be known as Bob, grow a beard, shave her head, and otherwise identify as a man? Nope.

So what is the problem?

When Sue wants me to go along with her mental delusion, now she is infringing on my rights. When Sue comes into my place of business and insists she use the men's room becasue she identifies as a man, now she is infringing on my rights. It is my business, not hers. I make the rules in my business, not her. If she does not like the rules in my business, she is free to leave and go somewhere else.

When the gay couple comes into my bakery and not only wants to buy a cake, but force me to create a cake with symbols and speech I find morally abhorrent, now they are infringing on my rights. It is my business, not theirs. They are free to leave and find a business that will do that for them.

My point? I have rights too. That is what you and the woke left seem to forget. A person's right to be them is fine. It is when they start infringing on my rights that I have a problem with.

I say live and let live. But if you want to come into my business, you play by my rules or you go find another business. Just like if I went into a business I would have to play by their rules. This means if I went to the gay baker and they refused to decorate a cake with traditional wedding symbols, I would leave and go to another baker. If I went to the business that allows men to use the the lady's room and visa-versa, I would leave. See? Everyone wins. Everyone gets to live as they wish.

And these are corrosive values? No, leftist wokism is corrosive becasue wokism says "Only people I agree with get to have rights."

Does this lead down the road to "whites only?" As I said, you got me there. I have no answer for that at this time. But somewhere I am sure there is an answer.
Numerous points to make here. Firstly, you rightly recognise that we agree on racism, but disagree on homosexual and Trans rights. Can't you see that this is evidence that morality is subjective? Are you accusing me of being insincere, of ignoring the inscription in my heart for the sake of political gain? Why can't you see that my conscience is different from yours, demands different standards and that neither of us has objective RIGHT on their side, just right as we see it?

Secondly, this is not a discussion about cake. I have sufficient sympathy with that argument to agree that it should be settled in a court room, since there are arguments on both sides. It comes down in the end to reasonableness. A KKK member asking for a fake with Nazi symbols from a black baker is unreasonable. A couple asking for a wedding cake with two grooms is not unreasonable, at least not in the minds of reasonable people, whom the law is charged to protect from the unreasonable.

The arguments against trans people go far beyond cake. There are people here who declare that trans people do not exist at all, that gender identity is a lie, that the whole issue is a modern invention, a political lie whose sole aim is to pervert children, encourage paedophilia and permit perverts to assault women in their bathrooms. That kind of rhetoric is not just grotesquely offensive, it is a lie itself, contrary to the facts of the real world.

You say that you have rights your self, including the right to refuse the "lie" of trans people's right to self-determination. You don't. Nor should you have. Do you have the right to insist that every Jewish man working for you wears a prosthetic foreskin made from Black Forest ham? Do you have the right to insist that every black person who works for you dressed in the costume of a n***** minstrel? Do you have the right to assume that trans women are solely interested in assaulting other women in bathrooms, without considering the risks to them of assault in men's bathrooms? I'm sorry, but you are wrong on this and issue, just as wrong as any racist or anti-Semite is wrong. In my opinion, of course.

As you state, we agree on racism, we disagree elsewhere. What decides the issue in practical terms is the weight of public opinion. Racists have been crushed under that weight. The days of overt racism being tolerated have long gone. Homophobes are being crushed. The matter is settled, though a few holdouts cling to religious exemptions. Transphobia is more in the balance, but the direction of travel is clear. I look forward to ideas such as you espouse in your post being as unacceptable as the racism of a century ago. I expect it to come in my lifetime, and I'm in my late sixties. Being trans is no longer the barrier or the handicap it was. The battle has essentially been won. The mopping up may take a decade or two. And you claiming to have RIGHT on your side, will not affect the outcome in the slightest.
 
Numerous points to make here. Firstly, you rightly recognise that we agree on racism, but disagree on homosexual and Trans rights. Can't you see that this is evidence that morality is subjective? Are you accusing me of being insincere, of ignoring the inscription in my heart for the sake of political gain? Why can't you see that my conscience is different from yours, demands different standards and that neither of us has objective RIGHT on their side, just right as we see it?

Secondly, this is not a discussion about cake. I have sufficient sympathy with that argument to agree that it should be settled in a court room, since there are arguments on both sides. It comes down in the end to reasonableness. A KKK member asking for a fake with Nazi symbols from a black baker is unreasonable. A couple asking for a wedding cake with two grooms is not unreasonable, at least not in the minds of reasonable people, whom the law is charged to protect from the unreasonable.

The arguments against trans people go far beyond cake. There are people here who declare that trans people do not exist at all, that gender identity is a lie, that the whole issue is a modern invention, a political lie whose sole aim is to pervert children, encourage paedophilia and permit perverts to assault women in their bathrooms. That kind of rhetoric is not just grotesquely offensive, it is a lie itself, contrary to the facts of the real world.
Numerous points here.
Firstly gays and lesbians disagree on rights. That doesn't make morality subjective either. But as to rights, a lesbian is a woman who is attracted to another woman by biological sex, 'transwoman' is a man so not a woman. Your ideology tries to make out a man is a woman, which is a lie. You therefore give right to lies.
Secondly, you consider a lie reasonable so we wouldn't want you as a judge in a courtroom. You are keen to point out the unreasonableness in Nazis and KKK, but unaware you support child abuse in the form of gender identity. Interesting also how you hate Nazis but are very firmly in the cultural marxist camp.

You say that you have rights your self, including the right to refuse the "lie" of trans people's right to self-determination.
You say 'trans people' but there is no quantifiable science to demonstrate 'trans people' Its just people who lie about their biological sex.
Why do you lie Temujin?
What self determination is it you are imagining? Someone can carry on pretending to be what they are not. That is not any determination at all, let alone self.

Homophobes are being crushed.
Like homosexuals threatened to be put on their backside by lgbt police? Like transactivists taking LGB Alliance to court. No Temujin, trans lies will be stopped. You are on the wrong side of history
 
The video by the barrister simply reveals the obvious. If one reads the PSPO prohibitions one can see the only breach she can be arrested for, praying.

That it has come to this thought policing in the UK is for two reasons. People don't tackle the injustice head on, and people are unaware of the activism in the first place.

The activists put lies out there and people use their words. Don't use the word gender , use the word sex. Don't use the word 'trans person' because that person has a biological sex. Don't use pronouns that aren't associated with the biological sex, we have as much right to use the language we choose as they do
 
Note that Temujin appeals to us about Nazis and KKK as though we dont ALSO appeal to Nazi, KKK, Marxism and gender identity. All four are evil and they dont all agree with each other.

Its all very well being subjective and relativist, but then you cant start appealing to others about what you think
 
Numerous points to make here. Firstly, you rightly recognise that we agree on racism, but disagree on homosexual and Trans rights. Can't you see that this is evidence that morality is subjective? Are you accusing me of being insincere, of ignoring the inscription in my heart for the sake of political gain? Why can't you see that my conscience is different from yours, demands different standards and that neither of us has objective RIGHT on their side, just right as we see it?
Actually, we do not disagree on the general principle. What we disagree on is how to apply it.
Secondly, this is not a discussion about cake. I have sufficient sympathy with that argument to agree that it should be settled in a court room, since there are arguments on both sides. It comes down in the end to reasonableness. A KKK member asking for a fake with Nazi symbols from a black baker is unreasonable. A couple asking for a wedding cake with two grooms is not unreasonable, at least not in the minds of reasonable people, whom the law is charged to protect from the unreasonable.
Here you go. This isn't about cake, yet--you want to tell people how to run their own businesses when doing do agrees with your ideology. Don't tell me this isn't about cake.
The arguments against trans people go far beyond cake. There are people here who declare that trans people do not exist at all, that gender identity is a lie, that the whole issue is a modern invention, a political lie whose sole aim is to pervert children, encourage paedophilia and permit perverts to assault women in their bathrooms. That kind of rhetoric is not just grotesquely offensive, it is a lie itself, contrary to the facts of the real world.
Let's be clear: the idea that there are more than two sexes is a lie. There are males and females. Period. The idea that there is more than males and females is a modern invention.

Now--gender? Who knows. Who cares. What needs to be made clear are these two points:

There are only two sexes. Sex cannot be changed. It does not matter how you identify. You are either male or female. Period.
You say that you have rights your self, including the right to refuse the "lie" of trans people's right to self-determination.
I didn't say that did I? What did I tell you? I said--I do not care what transgender people want to do. I care what they want ME to do, sir.
You don't. Nor should you have. Do you have the right to insist that every Jewish man working for you wears a prosthetic foreskin made from Black Forest ham?
No. But then again, I am not insisting that the transgendered person who works for me or wants to do business with me change their appearance or put something on they do not want to wear.
Do you have the right to insist that every black person who works for you dressed in the costume of a n***** minstrel?
No. Again, let me remind you of what I said: I do not care what people want to do or wear. I care what they want ME to do.
Do you have the right to assume that trans women are solely interested in assaulting other women in bathrooms, without considering the risks to them of assault in men's bathrooms?
No. But the basis on which I would require a transgendered person to use the bathroom that corresponds to their given biology--is that. Biology--not hatred, prejudice, etc.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong on this and issue, just as wrong as any racist or anti-Semite is wrong. In my opinion, of course.
Yes, of course in your opinion. But you and I both know---in the end, you believe that what you speak is not just opinion, but TRUTH.
As you state, we agree on racism, we disagree elsewhere. What decides the issue in practical terms is the weight of public opinion. Racists have been crushed under that weight. The days of overt racism being tolerated have long gone. Homophobes are being crushed.
See, you like the the woke left keep throwing out terms like "phobia." As though my objections are based on irrational fear.
 
Actually, we do not disagree on the general principle. What we disagree on is how to apply it.

Here you go. This isn't about cake, yet--you want to tell people how to run their own businesses when doing do agrees with your ideology. Don't tell me this isn't about cake.

Let's be clear: the idea that there are more than two sexes is a lie. There are males and females. Period. The idea that there is more than males and females is a modern invention.

Now--gender? Who knows. Who cares. What needs to be made clear are these two points:

There are only two sexes. Sex cannot be changed. It does not matter how you identify. You are either male or female. Period.

I didn't say that did I? What did I tell you? I said--I do not care what transgender people want to do. I care what they want ME to do, sir.

No. But then again, I am not insisting that the transgendered person who works for me or wants to do business with me change their appearance or put something on they do not want to wear.

No. Again, let me remind you of what I said: I do not care what people want to do or wear. I care what they want ME to do.

No. But the basis on which I would require a transgendered person to use the bathroom that corresponds to their given biology--is that. Biology--not hatred, prejudice, etc.

Yes, of course in your opinion. But you and I both know---in the end, you believe that what you speak is not just opinion, but TRUTH.

See, you like the the woke left keep throwing out terms like "phobia." As though my objections are based on irrational fear.
We do not agree that morality is subjective, unless you have changed your mind very recently. Nor do we agree on what is moral or immoral, or more specifically what is homophobia and transphobia and what isn't.

I only ask that businesses obey the law. Businesses used to be able to say, No blacks, No Irish, No dogs. They cannot do so now. What we are discussing is of the same order.

The notion that this is a modern invention is completely false. Only someone who has a fixed idea and doesn't want to challenge it could say such a thing. There are Catholic saints who were transgender. There have been transgender people throughout history in every culture. Some of the indigenous peoples of your own continent are well known for honouring and revering third gender people. There's a whole caste of third gender people in India. What is modern is a willingness to accept people for what they are, rather than impose a lie upon them.

The notion that single sex bathrooms are necessary for biological reasons is equally stupid. Prudery gone mad. What aspect of biology is under strain if unisex bathrooms are used in businesses, as they are universally accepted in private homes? Why on earth would anyone be upset at sharing a bathroom with someone who identifies with the same gender, but not with a homosexual person? Remember that bathrooms in the western sense are a modern invention, and that communal facilities are more common in history. Do Americans have a peculiar biology that makes single sex bathrooms essential, or at least more important than common courtesy and decency?
 
The notion that this is a modern invention is completely false. Only someone who has a fixed idea and doesn't want to challenge it could say such a thing. There are Catholic saints who were transgender. There have been transgender people throughout history in every culture. Some of the indigenous peoples of your own continent are well known for honouring and revering third gender people. There's a whole caste of third gender people in India. What is modern is a willingness to accept people for what they are, rather than impose a lie upon them.
Fine. Can men get pregnant? Yes or no?
 
Fine. Can men get pregnant? Yes or no?
Trans men can indeed get pregnant. Obviously they will have female anatomy, but most trans men do. They can even have abortions, at least in theory .I've never heard of a case, but given the numbers, there's bound to have been a couple.

What is the significance of the single sex public bathroom to this question? Do you think that is where people go to get pregnant?
 
We do not agree that morality is subjective, unless you have changed your mind very recently. Nor do we agree on what is moral or immoral, or more specifically what is homophobia and transphobia and what isn't.

I only ask that businesses obey the law. Businesses used to be able to say, No blacks, No Irish, No dogs. They cannot do so now. What we are discussing is of the same order.

The notion that this is a modern invention is completely false. Only someone who has a fixed idea and doesn't want to challenge it could say such a thing. There are Catholic saints who were transgender. There have been transgender people throughout history in every culture. Some of the indigenous peoples of your own continent are well known for honouring and revering third gender people. There's a whole caste of third gender people in India. What is modern is a willingness to accept people for what they are, rather than impose a lie upon them.

The notion that single sex bathrooms are necessary for biological reasons is equally stupid. Prudery gone mad. What aspect of biology is under strain if unisex bathrooms are used in businesses, as they are universally accepted in private homes? Why on earth would anyone be upset at sharing a bathroom with someone who identifies with the same gender, but not with a homosexual person? Remember that bathrooms in the western sense are a modern invention, and that communal facilities are more common in history. Do Americans have a peculiar biology that makes single sex bathrooms essential, or at least more important than common courtesy and decency?
Waffle. No evidence or examples.
The most prominent example discussed on this forum of people not being served are the bakers and the cakes and those were NOT people being refused because they were gay but because of their promotion of same sex relations. So they were falsely accused by lgbt activism, and your post is spin as well.

And you are still peddling thd transgender lie and rewriting history. There are two biological sexes so what sex is this third gender you refer to?

We have many schools breaking the law by not segretating toilet communal areas. Children are naturally uncomfortable primarily girls going through puberty and the boys feeling for them.... where they havent been indoctrinated with tranny lies.

Can you, who cant tell the difference between a male and a female recognise a dog when you see it?
 
Trans men can indeed get pregnant. Obviously they will have female anatomy, but most trans men do. They can even have abortions, at least in theory .I've never heard of a case, but given the numbers, there's bound to have been a couple.

What is the significance of the single sex public bathroom to this question? Do you think that is where people go to get pregnant?
Which proves there is no such thing as 'transmen' because if a person can give birth they are a woman. Your mental health issue.

This thread is about the arrest by the UK Stasi police of a woman for praying, and because you dont know a woman is, you cant communicate properly about it. I warned you its a deal breaker.

Smash the lie of gender identity.
 
Back
Top