Of course trans people exist, but I suspect their many experiences, motives and presentations do not enable a unified, useful defintion. On the other hand, you appear to not want to recognise the objective, material existence of women? I hope I am wrong.
OK! And yet there are aspects of ***** which are not biological organs and people will continue to want to talk about them. It's not like you can dismiss the concept of gender and trans people will suddenly feel like the sex of their organs. It just makes discussion harder.
-
-
Those remain judgment calls we haven't experience or ECHR decisions enough to navigate. The rapey fellah/lass in the women's prison was obviously silly, but we didn't have to do that now nor would we post reform as far as I can see.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And our debate is largely irrelevant to the current legal argument anyway. Which still preserves the same risk based approach to allowing people access to birth single sex spaces anyway
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.