Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36190843)

Disagree.

The basis of sex is biology (i.e. you always were, always are, and always will be either male or female, and the terms man and woman always and only mean adult human male and adult human female respectively).

Hormone treatment and cosmetic surgery may reduce or modify explicitly male or female behaviours and mask appearances, but serious studies have shown that in sports, especially, men retain biological advantages regardless of what medical treatment they have had. Reducing testosterone isn’t enough. Creating cosmetic sex organs does not reduce bone density.

Many women campaigning in this area also refer to what they call ‘male pattern aggression’; i.e. while the basis of sex is biological, a lifetime of being brought up according to natal sex inculcates patterns of behaviour which cannot easily be un-learned (and which medical treatment does not undo) and which are triggering especially for women who have suffered male violence.

Women seeking man-free spaces, especially where they are vulnerable and/or in intimate settings (medical treatment, toilets, rape crisis services, prisons) should not have to be concerned with whether the individual who enters that space alongside them is a man or not. Nor should they be forced to rely on an administrative process that creates a legal fiction (i.e. in the UK context, the Gender Recognition Act, which is increasingly being shown to be at odds with the rights and protections of the Equality Act). There simply is no way to draw a line between what is an acceptable intrusion by a man into an intimate female space and what is an unacceptable one. No man (i.e. adult human male) should ever be permitted to believe he may use such a space.

It’s worth noting that while this all applies equally to women who pretend to be men (no matter how sincerely they might believe it), the problems are asymmetric. A woman in a men’s toilet is, statistically, at risk. A man in a woman’s toilet is, statistically, a source of risk.

I could go on, and probably will. Meantime if you want to acquaint yourself with some of the objections from an avowedly atheistic point of view you could have a look at what Prof. Richard Dawkins has to say in this area. And I never thought I’d recommend Dawkins to anyone.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36190861)

You then apply an argument that assumes "men will always be men" and so can still be violent event though they have transitioned to women.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36190914)

Do we have evidence of a direct order from Trump mandating that DOGE is given access to this data?

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36190916)

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36190921)

Well, that’s not proof that Trump has given a direct order to release data to Musk.

He said

But he also said



So, is there evidence of a presidential order, mandating that DOGE is explicitly given this data?



Also, if there is, if there isn’t, I don’t care. I just want to see evidential back up to claims made.

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36190922)

We all know Trump lies and doesn't remember stuff so him saying what he did to the reporter about poor security is likely rubbish.

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36190927)

There 8s no evidence that disproves it either so the point you are trying to ,are is invalid.

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36190927)

There 8s no evidence that disproves it either so the point you are trying to ,are is invalid.

Trump has given free reign to Musk and the DOGE.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36190932)

What is doge, from what I can tell its five or six teenager's, that's not a security risk at all...

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36190931)

That’s not how it works..

If a claim is made, it must be supported by evidence to substantiate that claim.

If a claim is made is and there is no evidence to refute the claim, that does not mean that claim is valid ………..that is basic.

That’s a very….either naive or uneducated position to take……..which is it?


Has he? And your evidence of this is?