Waitrose delivery driver

Having read the entire thread I have come up with two points.

1/ this wouldn't have happened if the driver had STFU and just done the job that they were paid to do.
and
2/ KJK didn't mis gender the driver she was invited (by the driver) to state what she thought/knew the drivers sex was.

VERY INFORMAL DEFINITON
Ally - I am prepared to have a pint in the pub with my friend even when they, perhaps especially when, they drew attention for their unconventional dress.
TRA - the person/people that persuades management that everyone at work should be announcing pronouns at the start of meetings despite this being a terrible idea for many many reasons. The people who persuaded the courts (and newspapers) that the victims feelings were less important than the rapists in rape trials.

It's hair colour, isn't it?

Do you agree with that Discovereads ? That Lavery's gender identity translates into a yearning to be the victim of undisguised sexism?

I believe so.

Along with the memorable, and patently not true, "to be the victim of honest, undisguised sexism possesses an exhilarating vitality".

Hence the awful, albeit honest, quotes of people like Grace Lavery, Julia Serano, etc.

Don't forget Long Chou ....

distilling the femaleness to its barest essentials- an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes.

Such great respect that these males have for females. And they are supposedly 'identifying' as females with this much hatred.

I wonder how this gets woven into a coherent and 'stable' definition of gender identity?

What's the difference between a trans ally and a tra, sorry if I'm interrupting btw?

In no other area of psychology do we need to "validate" someone's belief about themselves.
Gender "affirmation" requires me to cede to your inner belief of who you are even when this is in direct contradiction to objectifiable and observable reality.
I can see that a person is a biological male. They may feel differently inside, who am I to argue? What they CANNOT feel, is like a woman, because they have never been one and therefore have no basis on which to align with that identity.
I will not be compelled to use language that I do not agree with based on someone else's feelings. What right do people have to think they can go through life without anyone ever objecting or disagreeing with them, and not only that, but to attempt to FORCE people to align with their beliefs or face the consequences.
I would never affirm an anorexic by agreeing with them that they were fat. This would probably hurt their feelings too. I wouldn't agree with a paranoid schizophrenic that there were voices coming from the TV. This might also hurt their feelings. I'm not going to agree that a man can become a woman because I know it's not true. And that probably hurts their feelings but that's life.
In the case of KJK, she is entitled to express whatever the hell she wants to in HER OWN HOME. If someone want's to challenge her posters/merch/T shirt, she is allowed to express her belief that TWANW.
As far as this whole incident I would not be surprise at all to learn that it was a set up. What are the chances of a TW delivery driver delivering to a hugely prominent Women's Rights campaigner who is spearheading the TWANW / Adult Human Female campaign? Of COURSE she is known to people who are familiar with the debate and a TW is bound to know who she is and what the posters meant. It was a deliberate and in my opinion, engineered, challenge on her own property.
The "I'll take my time" comment is a definite intimidating threat and anyone who says it isn't is either being deliberately obtuse or is a little dense. The delivery person was asked to leave. They didn't leave immediately. That is threatening and using an implied power over someone else to force you will over theirs. We have somehow got to the point where it is acceptable to intimidate a woman in her own home/on her own property, and yet, SHE is the one who is chastised. It would be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous.
I agree that there is no such thing as mis-gendering, because gender does not exist in an objectifiable and measurable way.
SEX however, is real. We base laws and legislation around it, we separate humans because of it where needed, we treat human bodies differently in medicine because of it. It is a fact though some might wish it were not.
SEXING people (correctly) is not transphobic.
If I don't buy into your quasi-religious doctrine I'm not compelled to share your intangible beliefs on the matter.
Because as much as some people scream and stamp their feet, biology is real, sex matters, facts are facts, and men cannot become women in any sense.

Hence the awful, albeit honest, quotes of people like Grace Lavery, Julia Serano, etc.

Am I correct in thinking that Grace Lavery gave us the Venus Rising From the Hot Tub account of Grace's personal transformation into womanhood?

Just caught up with this thread. Someone forgot: google exists.😂

Textbook.

Gender identity ideology is a religion and as such, I reject it completely. I don't share your faith, therefore I'm under no obligation to observe any of the tenets, rules, dogma or instructions given.

Or, in simpler terms for those who find that complex - no.

Exactly. It's a yearning to inhabit the stereotypes that society imposes on the opposite sex.

Even to the point of fetishising women's sexual objectification.

Hence the awful, albeit honest, quotes of people like Grace Lavery, Julia Serano, etc.

The definition of gender identity is 'coherent, stable and accessible', and yet, simultaneously involves 'countless articles and entire books written by scientists, philosophers, journalists' and 'terabytes of information' to do it justice.

And, of course, as PurgatoryOfPotholes points out, it's quite capable of being taught to primary school children.

it would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous.

Haha, you're all so full of your own self-importance.

The people coming here from outside of the echo chamber are only here shits, giggles and screenshots.

On the contrary.

However, if believing that makes you feel good, please go ahead.

Considering the repetitive nature of the posts supporting the more extreme demands of the trans lobby groups, I do laugh whenever I see the term 'echo chamber' used in this way. 'shits & giggles' for sure.

[This post is my long-winded attempt to get to the truth by reference to online definitions, only I seem to have got to the same answer that a very cynical and simplistic analysis would have got me to].

Some example definitions of gender identity - "an individual's personal sense of having a particular gender."

"Gender identity is a way to describe how someone feels about their gender. For example, some people may identify as a boy or a girl, while others may find neither of these terms feel right for them, and identify as neither or somewhere in the middle."

"One's innermost concept of self as male, female, a blend of both or neither – how individuals perceive themselves and what they call themselves. One's gender identity can be the same or different from their sex assigned at birth."

And a definition of gender - "Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to femininity and masculinity and is about social and cultural differences rather than biological ones."

So a gender identity is an individual's personal sense of having a particular set of characteristics that are nothing to do with the biological body, but do have something to do with society's expectations of different biological bodies or on a social or cultural level. Society's expectations based on someone's sexed body are by definition based on generalisations and stereotypes.

So, a gender identity is by definition an individuals personal sense of having a particular set of characteristics that accord with gender stereotypes (or do not accord with gender stereotypes in the case of the most special of all the trans people - the enbys).

If we forget about NBs and other neo-genders and pretend that all trans people are TM or TW, then a gender identity is by definition an individuals personal sense of having a particular set of characteristics that accord with gender stereotypes that are normally associated with the opposite sex.

Now, obviously, nothing in the real world should be based on "an individuals personal sense of..." anything, it should be based on truth and compassion and fairness and reason and things like that.

If we completely eliminate an individuals personal sense of how they accord with sex-based stereotypes, then we have to abandon gender identity as way of organising society. Which leaves the trans community with gender expression or nothing. Access to women's toilets comes down to whether you're wearing a dress or not?

Sorry to disappoint, but I’m not falling for the faux innocence “oh I just don’t know what gender identity is, please tell me”. You all know what it is. So quite simply, no I’m not going to copy and paste the terabytes of information regarding gender identity.

1. 🤣
2. if it takes terabytes of information to explain, why do you think we all know what it is?
3. it’s like God, isn’t it? No one can explain it, no one can prove it’s real, no one can define it in a simple or logical way, but there have been terabytes written about it and “everyone knows what it is.”
4. well, I say “it’s like God” but with the caveat that genderism is much, much, stupider than any mainstream religion.

@Helleofabore
Absolutely correct. Readers will identify the “what aboutery” attempt to derail the thread into discussing the definition of gender identity and hopefully learn from this thread that the best way to deal with “what aboutery” is to not rise to the bait. 😉

This thread has been a live demonstration on the tactics that we see discussed.

Of course, there will be thousands of readers on this thread because it will appear in searches about KJK. Those readers will note this this move, they probably would have anticipated it.

Well, as I said from the start. I’m a trans ally not interested in debating trans rights. I’m also not a TRA.

I came into the thread to discuss the matter at hand- the incident of KJK and her waitrose delivery. That’s it.

You can’t force me to participate in derailing the thread to debate gender identity or other trans rights issue.

If it requires 'terabytes of information', how does anyone explain it to primary school children?

Look up playing chess with a pigeon. We've got a fine example right here. Beautifully played, Mon ami.

You do realise the pointlessness of "debating" with people who have spent a lot of time thinking about an issue, if you are unwilling to address their points or answer questions.

If you were in a room with a bunch of vulnerable young teens you could just spout TWAW, be nice and half of them would lap it up. But here that approach is not going to work.

What is the point in posting on this thread if you are unwilling to actually try to say things that might change people's minds? I am not out hunting for those who dwell sub-bridge, but you are close to 'fessing up if you can't be bothered to even try to answer questions.

The definition you say you seek is coherent, stable, and easily accessible to you.

So..... no coherent or stable definition then.

It remains amorphous and indescribable.