21 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

An odd thing to say given this confirmation of the rules has happened under a Labour Government.

Perhaps the previous 14 year Illiberal Government found making a lot of noise about the matter more useful as a distraction to do anything about it.

Odd that you'd revert to "but but but the Tories" when it was the supreme Court that made the ruling not Labour.

Then Labour softened the statutory code of practice to water down the ruling.

Many Labour mps even suggest the ruling should not be accepted.

Nice try though Higgot.

21 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Most rapes occur in domestic settings, the victims own home being the most prevalent location:

“For year ending (YE) March 2020 and YE March 2025 combined, the most common location for rape or assault by penetration to occur was in the victim’s home (38.2%), followed by the perpetrator’s home (28.5%).”

Given your broad perjorative views of who might be the perpetrators, the best way to protect young girls (or indeed anyone) from rape might actually be to isolate all men from their likely victims, mass chemical or physical castration might be a more practical alternative.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/natureofsexualassaultbyrapeorpenetrationenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2025#circumstances-of-the-assault

Typical <REMOVED> from you to try and justify more sexual assaults against women in their safe spaces.

"But but Men rape women outside women's toilets as well".

Pathetic even by your standards Higgot.

On 5/22/2026 at 8:10 AM, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Surely common sense is prevailing here?

A men dressed as a woman is still a man biologically and must use the male bathroom /toilet?

Vice versa of course!

I can't see the problem?

You can't see what you don't understand. Birth gender is not always strictly binary. If you're willing you can find plenty of information on the internet. Start with 'intersex'. I bet you won't.

The code, which runs to more than 300 pages, has now been placed before parliament. MPs and peers have 40 days to object before it becomes statutory guidance.

I almost spat in my corn flakes. 300 pages? When every kid learns it the first day in kindergarden.

And then they wonder why people can't afford to start businesses.

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

You can't see what you don't understand. Birth gender is not always strictly binary. If you're willing you can find plenty of information on the internet. Start with 'intersex'. I bet you won't.

I understand perfectly!

I researched thoroughly 'intersex' or DSD some time ago. I have detailed files on it.

Humans are a sexually dimorphic species (male and female). Intersex conditions are abnormalities within that binary, not a separate category, it affects very few people.

Intersex , DSD, conditions are real medical anomalies that affect a very small percentage of the population. They are not evidence of a “third sex” or that sex is a spectrum in the way it’s often portrayed in popular culture.

39 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

not a separate category, it affects very few people.

It is a separate category when judged from their physical attributes and their hormone expression. They have a range of genitalia and internal organs. Even their DNA sometimes does not match either normal male or female. I don't buy your statement that they are not a separate category. If you can't put them into either sex precisely... then they're separate.

I read that intersex people occur about the same frequency as full blown red hair.

3 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

It is a separate category when judged from their physical attributes, and their hormone expression. They have a range of genitalia and internal organs. Even their DNA sometimes does not match either normal male or female. I don't buy you statement that they are not a separate category. If you can't put them into either sex precisely... then they're separate.

I read that intersex people occur about the same frequency as full blown red hair.

No, intersex conditions do not constitute a separate category or "third sex." They are developmental disorders (Differences/Disorders of Sex Development - DSD) where the normal process of becoming male or female goes wrong in utero.

These individuals still fall into the binary of sex — they are males or females with atypical development, not a third type. Even when genitalia are ambiguous or chromosomes are atypical (e.g., XXY, XO), their bodies are still organized around the male or female developmental pathway.

There is no third gamete type (sperm or egg), which is the biological definition of sex.

Calling them a separate category is a philosophical or ideological position, not a biological one.

The comparison to red hair is also misleading.

Natural red hair occurs in roughly 1–2% of the global population. Strict intersex conditions (those with significant ambiguity or mismatch between chromosomes, gonads, and anatomy) occur in approximately 0.018% to 0.05% of births — roughly 40 to 100 times rarer than red hair. The often-cited 1.7% figure is heavily inflated by including very mild or late-onset conditions that most people would never consider intersex. Biologically, humans remain a sexually dimorphic species.

Intersex conditions are rare anomalies within the male-female binary, not evidence of additional sexes.