Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 10
th, 2022 at 9:36pm:
Dnarever wrote on May 10
th, 2022 at 9:33pm:
Just a check.
Everyone does understand that the premise of this topic was not correct. Nobody was ever saying that they need to define the term man and woman.
All that happened is that in the particular document they didn't want to add their definition of the terms when the dictionary and base legislation has already done that.
The decision was to go with the existing definition instead or risking the creation of a conflicting definition. It wasn't about any of this.
OH! SORRY! You mean there is no need to legally define what is a man or a woman or a trans-woman or a trans-man? Especially given the blatant rorts in sports and the endless meaningless argument going on.....
Buggar me....
Wouldn't it be far better to start from a set of basic IDs?
Save a lot of trouble that way....
Anecdotal Evidence (ho, ho, ho):- As a Real Man, I could NEVER view a trans-man converting to woman as a woman. Woman to man doesn't interest me in any way - but then ... I'm a Real Man... I don't buggar boys....
I feel there is a crying need to define what is a man and a woman and all the others..... here and now.... we can't play some grey area forever.....
Quote:OH! SORRY! You mean there is no need to legally define what is a man or a woman
NO
The terms are already well defined.What they decided is that there was no need to create another alternate definition to the official definition that already exists.
The chose to just prevent any confusion or conflict by going with the official legal definition.
It wasn't about legally defining the term it was about the need to produce another redundant definition that could only make things worse with no benefit.
If you create a different definition from the legal definition it will be in conflict and likely not hold up in court. If it is the same there is no point in doing it.