Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

I'd love to see anything that supports your implication that she approves of Trump's predatory sexual behaviour, or other criminality.

I was vaccinated 5 times, I think (maybe more!), spent the best part of two years wearing masks at work, and still got covid at least three times.

You will continue to get Covid all your life, proper masks worn properly reduced the spread, Vaccines drastically reduced severe disease.

But there is absolutely no way I am going down the Covid Truther rabbit hole on here or anywhere.

Right. But - and you may have developed amnesia on this, but I havent - the official line until and for months after the first vaccines were released was that they would stop people from getting covid altogether. Like the measles and the polio vaccines do.

That was not true. So given that some people did die from the vaccine, and particularly young people who were not at any real risk from Covid, there should probably have been a somewhat different approach than obligatory vaccine with threats to fire recalcitrants.

And you haven’t responded to the issue of children’s social and educational development.

All good in your view?

(And if you don’t like where this is going, you shouldn’t have brought to try to discredit Rey.)

Some of that list was definitely arguable, eg. the value of lockdowns and the lab leak theory, though not vaccines imo. But yes, this is not the place for that discussion. It was Boggles who posted it though along with the fact that Sey appears to be a Trump voter (together with 77 million others), as evidence that she can't be trusted on this issue, which she is clearly committed to.

It's hardly a surprise that she is happy with Trump for delivering what she asked for on Title IX. The character assassination that's being meted out to women who stick their heads over the parapet is pretty unsavoury tbh.

It's for another thread if you want a covid rant but it's also undermining any argument you're making here.

I think 95% of the country do not know just how stupidly simple it is to magically become a (fe)male and have full access to single sex spaces - toilets, showers, dorm rooms, changing areas, win all around them in female sports, convicted sex offenders and violent offenders housed in female prisons.
How anyone can 'intend' to live as the opposite sex is another mystery. No woman wakes up in the morning and consciously intends to live as a woman, you live as a woman because you are a woman - a dress, long hair, high shoes, feminising your voice etc can never change that biological fact. Women who choose to have short hair, always wear trousers, no makeup etc are still 100% female.
Expecting at least some meaningful attempt at a transition is seen as 'gatekeeping' which is a socially punishable hate crime in the gender sphere. A 6'2" male with a beard can magically become a she/her with a piece of paper, no ifs, no buts.
The UK Supreme Court ruling changes that nonsense. I hope someone challenges in the same way here.

A great way if you wanted to win prizes or get some kind of promotion, especially if you are a poor performer.

That's just illogical.

In Ireland, over 1,188 gender recognition certificates (GRCs) have been issued since the Gender Recognition Act of 2015 came into effect.

Again just nonsensical self fear mongering based on a minute amount of people.

Gender (masculine/feminine) denotes behaviours, interests, forms of self expression associated with one's sex (male/female) but not everyone conforms to these. And an insistence that individuals only follow those gender traits that are associated with their sex is indeed oppressive. I have no doubt that most feminists support gender non conformity. They agree that men are sometimes feminine and women are sometimes masculine, and that it's harmful and very repressive to force those men and women to act only in line with what's expected of them according to their sex. And it feeds into homophobia as gay people are often gender non conforming.

But no matter how feminine a man is, he's still a man, and no matter how masculine a woman is, she's still a woman. And to say that being feminine makes a man become a woman, and that being masculine makes a woman become a man... is pretending. THAT is conflating sex and gender. It also ironically says the same thing that gender essentialists say - dresses, handbags, high heels and makeup = women; men's clothes and shoes and an outwardly very masculine look = men. Sex is not gendered behaviours. E.g. gay people are same sex attracted.

Gender non conforming alone is not the same thing as trans. A crossdresser, transvestite, drag artist is not trans - they are gender non conforming people.

A trans person is someone who undergoes extensive surgery and a longterm regimen of cross sex hormones, thus making the journey to being a transwoman or transman. This is certainly not the case for all gender non conforming people.

And no matter what you think of Germaine Greer, she is (or at least was) an actual feminist.

The UK Supreme Court ruling has made that now trans women can't use women's spaces.

However, now trans MEN can.

The old trope of men wearing a wig so they can go to the women's loos just to assault and rape them was used to scaremonger.

Now, because of the UK Supreme Court ruling, there is literally nothing stopping men from just waltzing in and claiming they are biological women.

Tell me exactly how that makes the 'nonsense' any better?

This is really not the gotcha that trans activists think.

The big difference this clarification of the law makes is that IF someone is acting in a way that makes a woman uncomfortable, she can now complain to the authorities about it. When women have complained about men being naked, sometimes with a visible erection, in communal showers etc, the WOMAN has been called a bigot, told that’s the law so management can do nothing, or even been put out herself.

And on your own point. in practice any trans men I’ve ever seen in real life have looked more like teenage boys than big scary 6 ft monsters. The “Look how mean and ripped I am” thing works better on Instagram than in real life - even when working out, they’re tiny men with tiny hands and feet. But as I say, it’s having the right to have actual men put out if necessary that matters.

The only person I’ve ever heard about that type of craic is Riley Gaines about Leah Thomas. Funnily enough nobody will back her up on that.

As for the last paragraph, you are proving the point. People are expected to ‘look’ a certain way otherwise there is some sort of right to question that.

Everyone spoke about trans women going into the woman’s bathroom and they’re going to attack you and rape you. Imagine what these women are going to have to face when using the men’s bathroom? F*ck them though, right?

And now, any man can walk into a bathroom and claim they’re biological women. They don’t have to wear the dress or the wig anymore either.

Be very careful what you all wish for

Well that is as clear as mud.

That'll be grand. I can guarantee you that won't be an issue. The minute a short-haired "cis" woman speaks it's obvious that she's a woman.

So unless you think that there are hordes of short-haired women (like myself) trigger-ready to go to court over just being ASKED if they're a woman - as opposed to being thrown out of sports centres and fired from their jobs*, which is what's been happening to women who've challenged transidentifying males in female spaces - well I think the first judge faced with such a frivolous case will make short work of it.

* And I'm sure you can point me to where you posted your concerns about Maya Forstater or Allison Bailey or Sandie Peggie or the Darlington nurses - I mean, given your concern about cis women being victimised.

What's that? You didn't give a damn about them?

Meh. I'm not surprised. Cos it's always about the men's feelings really, isn't it?

And yet now, any man can claim they are biologically female and just waltz in as they please. You seem to be ignoring that.

Umm. Are you saying this wasn't the case before? Because it very much was. The difference being that women were not allowed to complain about it, because supposedly the law allowed them to "just waltz in". Now, it's been made clear that it doesn't.

So could you explain how the situation now is worse?

(I've no idea what the rest of that confused and confusing post is saying, but I see you've ignored my examples of where your own opinions are based on wrong information, so I'll wait until you've acknowledged and dealt with the evidence I've provided as opposed to your mistaken opinions about me, before I bother trying to guess what you might have been trying to say there.)

You have indeed - but based on wrong information, as I've shown.

So your conclusion is also wrong.

There's no point in me arguing something based on your "alternative facts" when I've shown examples of where you are simply wrong. Until you have a better grasp of reality, there's really nothing to discuss. It's like trying to discuss evolution with someone who thinks the earth is 6000 years old.