I don't get where do they see the accomplishment in defining "woman" as "biological woman". Aren't the terms "biological man" and "biological woman" sort of blurry depending on what criteria (chromosomal, hormonal, physiological...) one uses? Or is "biological woman" exactly defined somewhere in the UK? Are they going to define "man" as"biological man" and risk leaving a gap where some people belong to none of those categories, or are they going to define it as "not a woman"?
guillem
joined 2 years ago
🌟"military acquisition"🌈🦄❤
Yeah sorry what a mess of a comment. I sometimes say "we" and "here" meaning different things without realising. I might have a bit of an identity crisis.
Left Spain. Am in Australia. The comment was written from a Spaniard perspective.
Sorry to add the depressing side but we have been protesting the rising costs of housing for decades and nothing seems to be improving. The slogan "You aren't going to own a house in your whole fucking life" is almost 20 years old now.
We, like the Americans, keep voting right for fear of the job stealing immigrants, and then the centre-right for fear of the right steering further right ("useful vote" they call it).
I left more that 10 years ago, though. We managed to put the left in the government in the meantime, in exchange for their support to the centre-right. I don't know how are they doing, but if there are still protests my guess is there hasn't been a lot of improvement.
I'm too dumb to understand economy but the problem seems global and above a single country's agency.
I won't die on this hill tho, I haven't pit much thougjt into my comment.
Yeah but who will you trust? The economists that rhyme with terrorists or the most successful businessman in history?
Peter Dutton, describing it as “another attack on our systems, on our society and on our institutions”.
It could perfectly be VOX's Santiago Abascal talking about the king of Spain. They really come out of cookie cutters.
They should force the SC pronounce itself as to what tf means that for them. I'd bet they are unable to give a definition of "biological woman" that doesn't leave out a lot of what they think "true women" are. Carriers of two X chromosomes? Outliers. Carriers of no Y chromosomes? Outliers. Possessors of a uterus? Outliers. Producers of the big gamete (Rowling's favourite) unless-unable-to-due-to-a-condition-that-is-morally-acceptable? Outliers everywhere. Then those outliers should sue.
Also curious why they aren't worried about defining men. They should be forced to unless they want to tacitly be defining men as non-women. Which would be funny, but probably undesirable for them.