UK supreme court ruling on legal definition of a woman

Had a quick google of women in the doomsday book. It suggests there were several mentioned
for one thing,
it's the domesday book not doomsday.

and for another,
it was written in latin
(which i have a good grasp of)
so some clown on a blog with only a few crappy contemporary translations hasn't a clue what they are on about.

try again :)
 
Quite obviously women were recognised and mentioned for centuries before and after the domesday book too so it’s not as if they’d have just suddenly decided to do away with the terms just for a very specific point in time.
 
Thanks for that. Just to clarify you wouldn't care if City's Women's team was made up solely by Men.

The vast, overwhelming majority of Women in professional sports probably close to 100% do not want Men in their sports but you won't acknowledge that.

No point in carrying this on, I don't believe Men have a place in Women's sports, you do, and neither of us will change our opinions.

Enjoy the rest of your evening.

Here's one of our own players expressing her support for the trans community.
 

Attachments

  • 1000120876.jpg
    1000120876.jpg
    126.3 KB · Views: 41
for one thing,
it's the domesday book not doomsday.

and for another,
it was written in latin
(which i have a good grasp of)
so some clown on a blog with only a few crappy contemporary translations hasn't a clue what they are on about.

try again :)
I apologise. My error with doomsday.

Fortunately the national archives have a fully searchable copy of the Domesday book (correctly referred to by the ‘crappy’ blogger) https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk...es/domesday-book/#6-accessing-domesday-online
The word woman has 500 references.
 
Thank god we have finally moved on to the pertinent point, did women exist before doomsday, did a slightly bonkers bloke want to shit in her hole rather than his and who won the once round the cave race.
 
i see nothing within your link to uphold your suggestion.

and furthermore,
your link openly admits itself to only claim to be "a guide".
Sigh. Below is an extract searchable from the link. It references a “free woman” as the other several hundred references do. It is ok to be wrong you know!IMG_0055.png
 

Because the protected characteristic is still there, so a woman transitioning to be a man for example
is now both protected by the characteristics of sex and also gender reassignment. That can still create huge problems for the same groups that brought the challenge today.

It also means other definitions need further clarity too as they weren’t part of the remit. It’s still a minefield at the mo, and I’m really not sure how they’re going to draft new legislation or definitions to accommodate for it.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top