Donate SIGN UP

Ed Davey Women Penis

Avatar Image
fender62 | 18:48 Tue 23rd May 2023 | News
59 Answers
Gravatar

Answers

21 to 40 of 59rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by fender62. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There’s nothing wrong with people being different atheist (although the examples you give are nonsense), but the simple fact of the matter is that women do not have penises.

To argue otherwise sends us into the realms of fantasy.
"Gender recognition act? Perlease!"

what do you mean by that?

the gender recognition act allows for people to obtain gender recognition certificate... a GRC allows a trans person to be married buried and registered as their preferred sex...

what could possibly be wrong with that?
gender does not exclusively refer to one's biological sex... there are a very small number of women who have penises but they do exist... ed davey is correct and rishi sunak is wrong
//there are a very small number of women who have penises but they do exist.//

... and everybody in the whole wide whirled has got to alter their natural behaviour and social norms to accommodate their abnormality?
err... no
//...a GRC allows a trans person to be married buried and registered as their preferred sex...//

"As their preferred gender", surely. Gender is a matter of opinion, biological sex is a matter of fact, determined at conception and is immutable.

//ed davey is correct and rishi sunak is wrong//

Depends on what you accept as fact. If you accept that a man who decides he will call himself a woman is genuinely a woman then Ed Davey is correct. Fine if you are happy accepting fiction as fact. If, on the other hand, you believe that a man who decides he will call himself a woman is simply that and nothing more, then Mr Sunak is correct. A man exercising his right to call himself a woman does not turn him into a woman, it simply demonstrates that he has a particular opinion that does not accord with the facts. Nothing wrong in that - politicians do it all the time.
untitled: "a GRC allows a trans person to be married buried and registered as their preferred sex... " - you cannot change sex any more than you can change species. Madness.
//err... no//

Then why must they alter their natural behaviour and social norms to accommodate confused, performance wannabe attention junkies?
who exactly do you mean by that togo?

yes i meant gender newjudge


tora... why do you think that it is madness to provide gender recognition certificates?
For the public, gender most certainly does refer exclusively to one's biological sex, and the two words are considered synonyms. If some professional body uses one differently it is no reason for the public to slavishly follow suit.

As for certification, it's hardly the first time nonsense legislation has been passed. Making a law doesn't change reality any more than sat on a beach telling the tide not to come in results in the tide turning around.
This is a total minefield for any politician.

You want to please the majority, but not be seen to be insensitive to minorities.

The minute you open your mouth you put your foot in it.

You can't say the right thing because there isn't a 'right thing' to say.

Grief everywhere you look.

Tomorrow's papers will be onto this.

Oh dear....

"Depends on what you accept as fact. If you accept that a man who decides he will call himself a woman is genuinely a woman then Ed Davey is correct."

there are not a lot of women with penises but a significant proportion of them are not transgender they are intersex... so it is factually wrong to say that women with penises don't exist even if you wish to disregard trans people
"For the public, gender most certainly does refer exclusively to one's biological sex, and the two words are considered synonyms."

irrelevant
I see a pattern untitled, yesterday you were arguing that discrimination by colour wasn't racism now a woman can have a penis! You seem to have a tendency to argue against what is obvious to the rest of us.
why do you believe it is madness to provide gender recognition certificates?
untitled: "there are not a lot of women with penises but a significant proportion of them are not transgender they are intersex... so it is factually wrong to say that women with penises don't exist even if you wish to disregard trans people" - find me someone with a penis that does not have a Y chromosome and I'll accept your argument, deal?
OK, I think I understand where you’re coming from, you’re using the exception that proves the rule.

There may be the very very very rare aberration, and therefore Davey is ‘technically’ correct, but by christ that is a very weak argument.
untitled: "why do you believe it is madness to provide gender recognition certificates? " - because you cannot self declare sex no matter what the law says. It just enables opportunist blokes to get into the girls changing rooms or womens prisons etc.
you are describing an intersex person
there are about as many intersex people as there are trans people deskdiary... it isn't common by it isn't as rare as you think it is

21 to 40 of 59rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Ed Davey Women Penis

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.