I honestly couldn’t be bothered knowing these two. Their position on trans doesn’t make sense and they refuse to answer any questions trying to get at the truth. For example, Stonewall define ‘Gender’ as a social construct usually called masculine or feminine which is ‘assumed from sex ‘assigned’ at birth. Gender Identity is defined as ‘ A person’s innate sense of their own gender, whether male, female or non binary’. Note the word slippage - gender is masculine but gender identity is male and vice versa.
So - by definition- a female who isn’t conventionally feminine and doesn’t feel very feminine is now a transman. A man who isn’t conventionally masculine is a woman. This is of course why they try to ‘trans’ Joan of Arc - she is no longer a woman breaking the boundaries and limitations of being a woman in her time, but ‘really’ a man. It’s about nothing but sexist limiting stereotypes - any woman throwing off the restrictive assumptions attached to her sex isn’t a woman showing what women can do but a man accidentally born in the ‘wrong’ body.
Awkward questions about Eddie Izzard, Philip/Pips Bunce are simply ignored because they ask the difficult questions that neither Caroline nor Stella want to answer - at what point, if any, should a male sex person be considered ‘a woman’? And if Eddie is a woman, then what IS a woman? And does this mean that any man who puts on a dress and lipstick is now a woman too? Because if not, then what’s the difference between Eddie and any other man with a different presentation? And are clothes and makeup the definition of being a woman?
Neither Caroline nor Stella seem able to think through the conceptual issues or what they mean and any question about practical out working of gender ideology is simply waived away. It’s beyond disappointing.
Thank God for Richard Dawkins who recently described gender identity ideology as ‘ludicrous’. Indeed.